Slashdot Mirror


Ask Slashdot: Where Can I Buy Legal Game ROMs?

PktLoss writes "I'm interested in building an arcade machine, following the footsteps of Cmdr Taco among many others. Not being all that interested in piracy, I need to find somewhere to buy games. StarROMs used to be the kind of thing I was looking for, though with an incredibly short catalog. The MAME people have a few available for free (non-commercial), but this isn't going to sate my needs. There's an entire cottage industry supporting this goal. People are ready to sell me plans, kits, buttons, joy sticks, glass marquees, and entire machines. That's fantastic, but where can I get the games? I refuse to believe that this entire industry is built on piracy."

264 of 361 comments (clear)

  1. The entire industry is built on piracy by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 3, Interesting

    EOM

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
    1. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by somersault · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah. Asking a question and ending with "I refuse to believe the truth!" isn't the best way to go.

      If these are ancient games, and there is no other way to get them, then they're "abandonware". Just grow a pair and download them. It might be illegal, but I don't see how it's immoral. If the company that made the game is even still around, you could try contacting them for a license as AC suggested.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    2. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Strictly speaking, some tiny percentage of the industry(the chaps who dumped the ROMs, if nobody else) is in possession of a backup copy of a cartridge that they own, which is arguably legal in some jurisdictions; but other than that it is pretty much all piracy all the time...

    3. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by countertrolling · · Score: 2

      The entire system is built on piracy. Might makes right

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    4. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Or to put it another way, ideally enforced copyright would kill this entire industry.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    5. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by HalAtWork · · Score: 2

      Many games will never be released for purchase because all of the various copyrights/licenses cannot be tracked down, or the companies are simply defunct. The only legal way to get them is to wait until they become public domain.

    6. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'd have to agree that those wacky Korean games are the best. Thanks for the trip down memory lane!

    7. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by somersault · · Score: 5, Insightful

      By which time you will be dead..

      --
      which is totally what she said
    8. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As will your children. And possibly your grandchildren.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    9. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by greg1104 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The reason piracy is the rule here is that it's almost impossible for a single home user to acquire the rights to use these ROMs. There are a few game vendors who have packaged up their ROM files to sell in that form. But those aren't normally aimed at an individual to buy; they're only packaged as a set of raw ROM files ffor resale as part of something else.

      If you buy a fully legitimate arcade console with licensed games, what they will typically do is negotiate licenses to several sets of these packaged games from multiple manufacturers. For example, X-Arcade Machine includes 205 licensed games, for the most part collections such as Namco Muesum and Midway Arcade Treasure's Titles where the manufacturer has gone to the trouble of packaging the game ROMs for distribution--and therefore licensing. (Note that the quality of the joystick and buttons used in the X-Arcade hardware is considered low compared to what most DIY consoles aim for; don't consider the above a recommendation for buying one of them, they're just a good example here)

      Packages such as Namco Muesum are available to buy on a wide variety of platforms. When you buy those, you're not directly given the ROMs though; you just get the right to play them as they are packaged for that platform. What I do to try and keep myself morally clean here is purchase any such collection that's available for the games I play on MAME.

      I buy these collections, I bought all of the games I liked from StarROMs when they were available. But the ROMs I play on MAME, those are coming from the bootleg distributions; like a lot of things, the pirates provide the easiest to use packaging of the software. Until companies like Namco and Atari start selling ROM licenses directly, I don't know that it's possible to be legally clean here, unless you buy one of the packaged cabinets from a manufacturer who is big enough to have negotiated a resale license.

    10. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by Bert64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Which is a waste of time, copyright terms are unrealistically long so anyone who remembers these games will be long dead by the time they fall into the public domain.

      Just goes to show that copyright terms are far too long. Anything that falls into the public domain will be long forgotten. Media should fall into the public domain once the original authors stop selling it.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    11. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      A tiny handful is more than the current situation where noone buys roms simply because they are not for sale.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    12. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Hm, that reminds me, the 80 game Atari 2600 collection I got from Steam contains most of the games as ROM files that can be read by standard 2600 emulators. It's not listed in the store currently but there's probably a disc version of that floating around.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    13. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by slippyblade · · Score: 1

      I actually like the X-Arcade stuff. For the money, it's pretty good. They have decent customer service and a great warranty.

    14. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by Z00L00K · · Score: 2

      There should be rules stating that if someone has made an reasonable attempt to get hold of copyright owner (documentation needed of course) and failed then the software shall enter Public Domain.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    15. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by Surt · · Score: 1

      Not sure how this qualifies as funny instead of informative. Really, it's more like 'depressing but true'.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    16. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by couchslug · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Always remember that law is not more or less than an arrangement of convenience for maintaining social order.

      We choose which laws we obey based on the cost/benefit perception we have of the results.

      Don't act as if law is sacred and that all law should be obeyed because it's "law".

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    17. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by antdude · · Score: 1

      Assuming he/she will have children. ;)

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    18. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by Riceballsan · · Score: 1

      Along with their children. Odds are someone in the industry will eventually find a way to get the license or manipulate a few laws to allow it to be gotten, to slip it into a compilation pack of some kind as a trick to reset the timer on the copyright.

    19. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, there should be a registration requirement, without which you cannot claim damages, and you should be required to update that registration in a timely manner. You know, like the way things used to work before we went all Berne-Convention-y in the 1970s.

      The burden should be upon the copyright owner to facilitate contact by potential licensees, not on the potential licensee. After all, it is the copyright owner who stands to gain, not the licensee (who could almost invariably just ignore the copyright, and the licensor would never know).

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    20. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by sixsixtysix · · Score: 2

      Media should fall into the public domain once the original authors stop selling it.

      exactly. i 've always thought it should have to be made available to be protected. it'd also help do away with back-in-the-vault shenanigans. there is plenty of media that will never be released because they are not commercially viable, but will they just sell me the fucking .iso download (at a rate that makes up for the removal of all third parties. sure bandwidth costs something but is nothing compared to packaging/shipping/retail) and make their cash? noooo. people WILL get what they want, one way or the other.

      --
      ...
    21. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      I don't think any sort of copyright is "ideally" enforced, anyway. Yet, there are still many people who buy things.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    22. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      One step further, since you own the physical cart ( and license to use it ) i don't see a problem with downloading it. It's only 'piracy' if you don't own a license.

      Right. I've heard Penn Jillette say several times he doesn't mind if you download BullShit! from Bittorrent if you subscribe to Showtime - you've already paid for it.

      He probably doesn't own the copyright himself, but he's got the moral equation worked out properly.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    23. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      Don't act as if law is sacred and that all law should be obeyed because it's "law".

      Anyone acting this way is just ignorant of political philosophy beyond a fifth grade level. Heck, Augustine wrote "an unjust law is no law at all" in the 4th Century. Note to Catholics: that's the teaching of a Saint.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    24. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by swalve · · Score: 1

      Until the Pope starts bailing people out, I'm going to stick with the law rather than the rantings of some saint.

    25. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by DavidTC · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This.

      There is a valid argument for saying 'People should not have to pay to register every single thing.'. But the fact is, at this point in time, there's absolutely no reason why anyone should have to pay just in case.

      The government could simply have a website and hand out unique IDs whenever anyone wanted. You produce something you suspect might be worth copyrighting, you get a unique ID for that thing for free and stick it in the copyright notice.

      Then you have three years to actually fill out a copyright registration for that ID and pay $25 or whatever, or it's considered abandoned and thus public domain.

      That seems to get rid of any of the so-called reasons we started issuing copyrights automatically. It gives people plenty of time to see if the registration is worthwhile, it helps people who might not have thought that specific thing was worthwhile, yet doesn't result in every single damn thing ever written being copyrighted.

      Likewise, if someone attempts to contact the person listed, and they can not be reached, they should be able to send a notice to the copyright office, which will then mail an official letter giving them a year to fix their registration, or it's public domain. Any idiot can type in the unique ID and see the copyright status, and where to send the info to. (We could even charge people for questioning the status. You try to contact a copyright holder, you can't, you pay $1 to have the copyright office send an official postage-paid letter that they are require to respond to.)

      And we need to go through the older stuff and slowly start requiring that done to them, also. The older stuff actually _does_ have registration, as you pointed out....but we need to put the contact information online, so we can say 'Hey, those people don't exist', and get the copyright office to remove the copyright after a year or so.

      As for the newer stuff, that's harder to figure out, but I think giving people ten years or so to locate it and register it would be reasonable.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    26. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by ArundelCastle · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Asking a question and ending with "I refuse to believe the truth!" isn't the best way to go.

      Especially when it follows "but this isn't going to sate my needs", like there's some addiction counseling involved.

      If you want to do things your way to suit your needs and convenience -- and a MAME cab is the epitome of this philosophy, because most people can't fill their man-cave with a full arcade -- then your hands are going to get dirty. The industry doesn't have an open door policy for DIY geeks.

      Having said that, one of the best DIY solutions I've ever seen was a limited run USB cartridge reader, that mounts cartridges as an external drive. Basically letting you jack a cart into the computer without needing to actually dump the ROM. Now that is the cleverest no-piracy route I have seen, but as I said it's not mass produced, so I'm not even going to hunt down the link. Would it solve the OP's problem if the industry would support it? Maybe. But they never will, because there's no protection for them.

      This is what the console industry wants you to buy legally. Please note for emphasis that all of these things are inherently incompatible with a "does it all" cabinet.
      http://www.amazon.com/Atari-Paddle-Controller-13-Games-Pc/dp/B0001GBRO6
      http://www.amazon.com/Atari-280243-Flashback2-Classic-Console/dp/B0050JBHCG
      http://www.amazon.com/Intellivision-Greatest-Hits-Pc/dp/B00008OE4Z
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_Room
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_Console

    27. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by dudpixel · · Score: 1

      is it still piracy if you copy the ROM from a machine you paid for and own?

      --
      This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
    28. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by bored · · Score: 2

      Just goes to show that copyright terms are far too long. Anything that falls into the public domain will be long forgotten. Media should fall into the public domain once the original authors stop selling it.

      And that, I think is the point. The media companies are having enough problems selling you their latest trash. The last thing they want is to have to compete with free public domain content. There are enough books on Gutenberg project at this point that I could _NEVER_ expect to read them all in my lifetime. When that starts to happens to audio and video, the industry will be in for big changes. So the best plan is to lock it in the vault for the last 50 years of copyright so that no one has a copy by the time the copyrights expire. At which point the media is simply gone.

    29. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      I've spent the entire weekend trying to track down now-defunct font distributors and font forges, shareware authors whose email addresses stopped working when Netscape stopped being an ISP, etc. What a freaking mess.

      I honestly don't care what the details are as long as I never have to follow a chain of corporate asset sales through court filings and newspaper clippings again, only to find out that they were really just a reseller, and the font was a slightly re-kerned Gill Sans....

      @$^&(^^@&&@(*$@&#*^$#&

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    30. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by _Shad0w_ · · Score: 1

      That's a shame, because Augustine of Hippo was much more than just a saint. For a start you have to be dead to be a saint, which means all the important stuff he did was long before he was a saint. He was also a strong advocate of Just War - that people should be pacifists in their daily lives, but that this didn't extend to the defence of innocents. He was also an exponent of the bible as metaphor, not literal. He did have some pretty crap views on sex and contraception though.

      --

      Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.

    31. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      Just avoid the known active litigatous bastards : Tetris, Pacman (from which you could get an expensive license)

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    32. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by Zancarius · · Score: 1

      Right. I've heard Penn Jillette say several times he doesn't mind if you download BullShit! from Bittorrent if you subscribe to Showtime - you've already paid for it.

      He probably doesn't own the copyright himself, but he's got the moral equation worked out properly.

      That does bring something entertaining to mind. At least, it was funny in my head, so I apologize if it isn't so humorous written out. Imagine the following scenario:

      Most televised broadcasts in the United States are paid for by some permutation of subscription fees to a cable or satellite service and/or advertisements. Imagine the conundrum presented if most torrents of these broadcasts contained identical ads*. The content creators couldn't necessarily argue that they were losing out on any inherent value, because the commercials would receive even greater exposure! Yes, yes, I know that's not the point that they'd argue, but it would be at least vaguely appealing if some network said "Hey, as long as you leave commercials our supporters paid for in the torrent, we don't mind."

      * Presume that the content consumers were either too lazy or not savvy enough to strip these out.

      --
      He who has no .plan has small finger. ~ Confucius on UNIX
    33. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by Meski · · Score: 1

      If the companies that owned them are defunct, who owns the copyright? Does it cease to exist?

    34. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by somersault · · Score: 1

      I didn't say it was a legal classification.

      You really think rights to all 70s and 80s games from tiny software houses were sold on? If I want to play an old game and there's no legal way to buy a license, I'm going to pirate it. In many cases the games I want to play are ones I bought in the 80s/90s already though, so despite it being illegal to download ROMs, I have no reason to feel guilty about it.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    35. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by shaitand · · Score: 1

      The issue I have with this is the fees. Supposedly copyright is a service that benefits the public (if not then it should be abolished an we don't need to worry about fees) and there is a system in place for collecting funds for public services and it is called income tax. While that system is far from perfect it is the thing we have to distribute the financial burden of public services in a fair way. Fees do nothing of the sort.

      There should be no fees for government services or at least where there are fees they should be used to limit abuse or allow service that isn't considered part of the function of public service and it should be possible to use the service in a non-abusive manner without fees. For instance, 5-10 filings a year might be free after which the copyright office charges a fee. The office should not be dependent on these fees for funding (taxes should take care of that) but the fee prevents abuse of the service.

    36. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Until the Pope starts bailing people out, I'm going to stick with the law rather than the rantings of some saint.

      Some of my friends around here live in houses with hidden compartments for hiding slaves on their way to Canada. I would have gladly done the same - a shame you would have turned them in.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    37. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      And you sir hit the nail.

      Illegal is NOT = to wrong.
      Legality is NOT = to right.

      Problem is Morality is ambiguous. What I call moral you might call immoral and vice a verso.

      In the 13th century, if a farmer dumped a box of tools in the ditch near his field and years later someone came along and dug in that ditch and found a rusty hammer, the farmer could not claim that it was his hammer and demand restitution...

      But today, you own everything forever, and I call that highly immoral.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    38. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Current copyright laws are immoral.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    39. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Yup, some people prefer to live in fear and compliance.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    40. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      It depends, the RIAA and MPAA will say yes.

      and the BSA will also say yes, simply because they make money on their extortion racket.

      anyone sane will say no.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    41. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And so will the ROM. Early arcade ROMs are already becoming unreadable due to bit rot. Some companies (Sega) even installed "suicide batteries" that wipe a necessary encryption key when the battery goes flat, and typical battery life was less than 10 years.

      Some modern games require a network connection so they can download an encryption key. Once those servers are turned off the game will be lost forever unless someone manages to find the key. DRM is ensuring the loss of our cultural heritage.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    42. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by Vhann · · Score: 1

      Most televised broadcasts in the United States are paid for by some permutation of subscription fees to a cable or satellite service and/or advertisements. Imagine the conundrum presented if most torrents of these broadcasts contained identical ads*. The content creators couldn't necessarily argue that they were losing out on any inherent value, because the commercials would receive even greater exposure! Yes, yes, I know that's not the point that they'd argue, but it would be at least vaguely appealing if some network said "Hey, as long as you leave commercials our supporters paid for in the torrent, we don't mind."

      * Presume that the content consumers were either too lazy or not savvy enough to strip these out.

      Except it doesn't exactly work that way: advertisers pay a certain fee per view per minute or something along those lines. Advertisers probably won't pay for views the TV networks can't account for with a certain degree of certainty which would be the case with BitTorrent downloads (and that's assuming a world where people wouldn't just fast-forward over ads and where such contents wouldn't get repackaged ad-free in a different Torrent).

      Economy is a complex matter.

    43. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by 1karmik1 · · Score: 1
      Although brilliant and evocative, so far i don't think Amazon or Barnes and Nobles have ever even heard of the Gutemberg Project. I do agree there is a problem with limiting "old" content to circulate freely but i don't think it's part of an agenda by media moguls.

      Serving the amount of content we are talking about is a massive feat. At this time there might just not be enough push for it. And yes, we _are_ going to lose very invaluable things. In the history of this civilization, the 20 years around 2010 will be a huge black hole in the records of the information age.

      We have no widespread, easily replicable, established way of preserving data and we're generating more and more every day, without knowing how to practice safekeeping on the important stuff.

      --
      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.
    44. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      My problem with registration is that I don't want to have to register every picture I take, every blog post I make, etc just to be sure that some company doesn't steal it for their own use. However, perhaps there should be two levels of copyright protection.

      Unregistered copyright protection would last for 14 years (the original copyright term length). After that 14 years, it would fall into the public domain. No options for renewal unless you registered it. Registered copyright protection would last for 28 years. After that, it would fall into the public domain.

      To prevent people from abusing the system by waiting 14 years, registering and then getting 28 more years, registering would only extend your copyright protection until it had been protected for 28 years. So if you took a photo today and registered it 10 years from now, it's copyright would still expire in the year 2039. Meanwhile, a photo you took today and didn't register would become public domain in 2025.

      Under this copyright scheme, we'd see works created in 1983 falling into the public domain. (I'd be generous and assume that anything created prior to this scheme being enacted should be treated as if it were registered.) This would include many classic games. By 2017, we'd have everything from the 1980's in the public domain and by 2027, everything from the 1990's would be in the public domain.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    45. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by Vhann · · Score: 1

      Yup, some people prefer to live in fear and compliance.

      You're judging infringing copyright and freeing slaves as if there was some sort of moral footing common to both.

      It can also be looked up from a different perspective: in the case of slaves, it would be unjust to report them. In the case of copyright, the same thing can be said if you look at things from the copyright holder's perspective.

      *The following is an expansion of my reasoning for people who would like to comment. I separate it from the beginning because it is not targeted to anyone in particular (by opposition to the above which is targeted towards parent)*
      And let's be objective and realize that copyright holders can't be anything other than some big evil company, it can be small company or even normal people.
      Furthermore, even if the copyright holder is some big company that didn't create the content and is charging you big money, that doesn't make it
      right to rip the content: they still paid the author (however little) while ripping pays said author sweet nothing.

      Now, does this mean I think copyright is a perfect system or needs to be more aggressive? No, my recommendation is to choose the most morally acceptable choice on a case-by-case basis, see response to parent for more information.

    46. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by Vhann · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing it must be like for copyright owned by individuals: control of the copyright is inherited (see Michael Jackson's copyright on The Beatles's songs: the Jackson family controls it now). How everything works down to the details, I don't know, I suppose a lawyer would be able to tell you that.

    47. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by PIBM · · Score: 1

      Actually, they seem able to track bittorrent download much more accurately than tv sets showing a specific movie.. so that could work for them!

    48. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      If the company that made the game is even still around, you could try contacting them for a license as AC suggested.

      Don't bother. Either they'll tell you "No" outright, or they'll ask for some absolutely fucking ridiculous licensing fee (I once had a software company ask me for a $10000 licensing fee to put ONE COPY of a piece of old software on one of my machines, just insane).

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    49. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      ROMs are dumped. Buying a board is doable, but the OP was talking about getting at the program data.

    50. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Copyright is asking for a government enforced monopoly on something. It's entirely reasonable to ask for a fee for the privilege of that monopoly.

      And putting the burden of paying for copyrights on the people with copyrights seems, uh, a hell of a lot more fair than spreading it out to everyone.

      And if you can't make $25 on something in three years, I have no idea what the heck you'd want it copyrighted for.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    51. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      There's actually a nice side effect of my system that I didn't think of until rereading my post: It discourages updated-copyrighting.

      Right now, there are web pages that have the copyright notice show the current year. Likewise, if someone rereleased a DVD, they will simply update the copyright year.

      So it's possible to find something that says 'Copyright 2011', when in actuality it's copyright 1986.

      But if each unique ID was different...well, the ID was generated at a certain time, and that's when the copyright starts from. (In fact, the IDs should probably be of the form 20110912-492922533 or whatever, having the day generated in them.)

      So that would mean that either they get a new ID for each thing (And hence actually pay for that one, or risk that falling into public domain.) or they use the old ID, so we can see the _actual_ expiration on it. Or they use both together: DVD menu and extras copyright 20110912-492922533, movie copyright 1986-whatever.(And now there's limited risk of the movie falling into the public domain, as they just need to keep track of on ID for it.)

      Right now, the law seems a little screwed up. They have to register copyright to sue over them, but no one seems to notice that, when they sue someone over distributing a copy of Back to the Future, that they've registered a copyright as being created in 1986, but the actual DVD claims to be copyright 2006 or whenever.

      Of course, this would be more relevant if copyright actually expired.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    52. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      I agree completely, except 14 years is much too long. I proposed 3 years above. You get 3 years without registering.

      In fact, make it graduated. 3 years free, 7 years for $25, another 7 for $250, another 7 for $2500, etc.

      And, also, copyright holders should have to keep contact information up to date. Every copyright statement should have an ID that people can look up online, and find out who owns it. This is frickin 2011, it's entirely possible to get every copyright holder an account at the copyright office and let them update their address and whatnot.

      If someone cannot locate a copyright holder, they should be able to pay a small fee and have the copyright office look into the matter, and void the copyright if the holder cannot be located in a year or so. Something like 50% of all _registered_ copyrights are floating around without an locatable owner, there are movies smuldering in vaults without known owners, and it's only gotten worse since we magically made everything ever produced under copyright.

      No. Just, no. We cannot locate you, you do not get to have a copyright, period. The government is not going to let you keep a government granted monopoly when no one knows where or even who you are.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    53. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by SScorpio · · Score: 1

      The cartridge reader would work fine for console games; however, since he's using MAME he's interested in arcade games.

      He could just build is JAMMA compliant cabinet and then he could just swap in the actual boards to play the games. He'll be limited to JAMMA games so older classics won't be compatible, but it will allow for a very large number of games.

      http://www.jammaboards.com/jcenter_arcade_cabinet.html

    54. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Of course they have (at least Amazon has).

      http://www.amazon.com/b/ref=amb_link_355831402_8?ie=UTF8&node=2245146011

      mentions archive.org, openlibrary.org, Project Gutenberg, and manybooks.net as places to get free books.

    55. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Michael Jackson did not buy the "copyright" on The Beatles Songs. He bought the *publishing rights* to most of the Beatles songs (as well as other songs).

      http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/jackson.asp

    56. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by wikthemighty · · Score: 1

      Until companies like Namco and Atari start selling ROM licenses directly, I don't know that it's possible to be legally clean here, unless you buy one of the packaged cabinets from a manufacturer who is big enough to have negotiated a resale license.

      Legal download of Atari ROMs? Download iTunes and Atari's Greatest Hits (both free) Open the Greatest Hits 1.3.ipa file with WinRAR, browse to Payload\Greatest Hits.app\Library\Data and help yourself to a ton of bin files. Don't think any of the Namco iOS titles are emulated - but you can get ROMs from some of the SEGA apps...

      --
      "There are people who do not love their fellow human being, and I _hate_ people like that!" - Tom Lehrer
    57. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Unregistered copyright protection would last for 14 years (the original copyright term length).

      I think you're misunderstanding the problem. Your blog and your photos are a non-issue because your blog remains available. The content that causes problems is content from publishers or developers who stop making their products available for an extended period of time, and who disappear from the face of the Internet.

      The rule should be that a company or individual retains copyright for the maximum copyright duration so long as that content remains available in a searchable form on the Internet. If the person decides to hide from the world, or takes it down because the bandwidth costs are too high, that copyright must be registered in a timely manner, or else it is forfeit.

      I would say that the day the content creator/distributor ceases to make the content available, the clock should start ticking, and if it isn't available again within one year, their copyright should expire unless it is centrally registered. The law should also require that they reference the original name for the product or company in their re-release to ensure that it is easy to search for the original product or company and find out who owns those rights. If they do all of those things, then the timer should reset.

      The law should also have a separate maximum time that a product can be unavailable before copyright expires even if you register it, which should apply to all copyrights held by corporate entities... but that's another rant.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    58. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      I think you're misunderstanding the problem. Your blog and your photos are a non-issue because your blog remains available. The content that causes problems is content from publishers or developers who stop making their products available for an extended period of time, and who disappear from the face of the Internet.

      You originally said "there should be a registration requirement, without which you cannot claim damages". I was just pointing out that, under a system like that, I could post a blog item with a photo and then have a company take my photo and use it for their own purposes. Since I hadn't registered my photo, I wouldn't have been able to claim damages and the company could do whatever they liked with it.

      As far as making it available, copyright doesn't require availability. In the past, this was offset by shorter copyright terms. Yes, you could refuse to make any more runs of your book after the initial run, but once 28 years passed, it was public domain and someone could copy your book to make a new run of it. Now, of course, you'd need to wait 70-90 years if not more. By that time, any surviving copies will be hard to come by and even the existence of the book/work might be forgotten.

      The problem isn't one of availability, but of copyright duration. After all, how do you define "available"? What about if the content is available, but behind a paywall and in a lower resolution? If a movie company released a VCR-quality movie through a Netflix-like paid-streaming service, would that keep their copyright perpetually registered? What if they released a Blu-Ray disc but priced it at $10,000? It's "available", but only at a price point that nobody would be willing to pay. You can bet that companies would use tricks like this to skirt around the available rule.

      Our best bet for a sane copyright is a simple one: Every work gets 14 years of automatic protection. If you want more, you can register and pay to get 28 years. After 28 years, your work is Public Domain.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    59. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "Copyright is asking for a government enforced monopoly on something. It's entirely reasonable to ask for a fee for the privilege of that monopoly."

      Not if you already pay your taxes it isn't.

      "And putting the burden of paying for copyrights on the people with copyrights seems, uh, a hell of a lot more fair than spreading it out to everyone."

      That is the case with every government service that an individual doesn't use. I don't have kids. It seems far more reasonable to do away with public schools and make those with children pay for the costs of their education. Why not make all roads toll roads so only those who drive on a given road have to pay for its upkeep? The fact is that none of need all the public services and all of use some of them and benefit from results of others using them. If a service isn't of benefit to the public then it shouldn't be a public service and if it is of benefit to the public then it should be entirely funded via taxes.

      Copyright isn't only for profit. It is also for the purpose of control. As for $25, that adds up pretty fast if you are actually producing material. A hobby song writer might write a couple dozen songs a year making it a $600 experiment to find out if they will make money on ANY of them. Patents will cost far more than that EACH for an inventor who may well produce that same two dozen or even more. If you are a tech worker and/or somewhere like California or a metropolitan area that might not seem extreme but for a large portion of society that $600 is as much as a month's pay. I promise you, the guy earning multiples of that in each check isn't working any harder and his massive salary is subsidized by the labor of that poor SOB making $600/month. Damn right he should pay his share for ALL public services used by mr 600/mo come tax time.

    60. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by Vhann · · Score: 1

      Well, that was an interesting read.

      That being said, the Michael Jackson case may have been a bad example, but I'm still pretty sure my statement is true:
      "Paul McCartney and John Lennon (and Lennon's estate, now that he's dead) have always received their 50% songwriter's share of the royalties for all Lennon-McCartney songs"

      Lennon's estate still receive Lennon's share (authorship?).

    61. Re:The entire industry is built on piracy by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      It seems far more reasonable to do away with public schools and make those with children pay for the costs of their education.

      I'm very sorry you were not educated in schools. You write very well for someone with no schooling, I would not known if you had not told me. Or were you home schooled?

      But I think the system we have now, where we assume we educate everyone in public schools, and then bill everyone who got that benefit (I.e, everyone) later in life, works fine. (I'm a little baffled at the idea we'd charge their parents, or the charge children when they are children, though. No, we wait until they are adults,at which point, if schools have done our job, they pay taxes.)

      Yes, sometimes people are not able to get to school, or moved here from outside the country, or sometimes opt-out, but there is a rather large difference between 'Government services that 99% of the population uses to have the basics required for life, which everyone should pay for in taxes', like public education or roads, and 'Government services that 1% of the population uses to make money', like copyright.

      And please note that arguing that I'm some sort of pay-as-you-go libertarian is stupid. I'm probably further to the left than you. But copyright isn't some free public service the government provides for the poor, copyright is specifically restricting the rights of _millions_ of people to make copies for the benefit of a copyright holder. It's a government sanctioned and enforced monopoly, and just like it's reasonable to charge companies for purchasing exclusive rights to parts of the EM spectrum, it's reasonable to charge companies (and people) for exclusive rights to make copies.

      Copyright isn't only for profit. It is also for the purpose of control. As for $25, that adds up pretty fast if you are actually producing material. A hobby song writer might write a couple dozen songs a year making it a $600 experiment to find out if they will make money on ANY of them.

      Which is why, of course, I proposed a 3 year free copyright period. You can make the song, and _then_ see if it's successful, and _then_ pay for the copyright renewal.

      If after 3 years of selling the thing you can't see yourself making $25 off it in the next seven years, you probably shouldn't renew the copyright. If it's not worth $3.57 a year to you, then it seems pretty damn unlikely you'd be willing to pay court filing fees to keep someone from violating the copyright anyway, so there's really no point in keeping the registration around.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  2. From who? by TerminaMorte · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Who would you be buying it from? In most cases you'd just be buying a shady company for a pirated ROM regardless. Most of the companies that made these games no longer exist. Any IP is going to be owned by a large corp like Nintendo, who will want you to buy their console and not DIY You are saying you do not want to pirate, while at the same time you want to use this content in an un-authorized/un-approved way. Piracy is your only real option if you want to play "popular" game ROMs.

    1. Re:From who? by PktLoss · · Score: 1

      Well, once upon a time StarRoms was that company, and even (appeared) to have licensed the games they were selling. I naively thought they might have been replaced by something I was missing.

    2. Re:From who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The most entertaining part of this whole discussion is we're talking about games made in the 80's and 90's.

      Whatever happened to the Public Domain? Or have we all forgotten, since there's basically nobody alive who's really experienced works in the public domain, that THE ENTIRE POINT OF COPYRIGHT IS TO ENRICH the public domain?

      There are those who argue the age-old publishers cry "we need to protect scientific and cultural advancement" I say, without the public domain, there's no incentive not to reproduce the same things that were in the past, or not to sit on your hides renting technology. Such hypocrisy; to build off the technology of the past in order to monopolize the present. Publishers will never stop arguing "longer longer" and the people, well, they're the only reasonable one in the discussion.

      Sony doesn't want you buying FF7 for the same reason Best Buy doesn't want a Sony TV on their shelves that is more than a year old. They don't want to dissuade your dollars from buying the new shiney. Although I do have to ask what kind of market it would be, especially for gaming, if the current cookie cutters had to compete with the old cookie cutters.

        I say, if there's works created in my lifetime will never enter into the public domain, then there is no point in participating in copyright.

    3. Re:From who? by Moryath · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Thanks to Disney and the corrupt shills that have taken over the government, games made in the 1980s won't "expire copyright" and return to the public domain until sometime after 2100. If there isn't yet ANOTHER "Mickey Mouse Protection Act" copyright extension passed in the meantime.

      Part of the problem is that copyright doesn't take into account the life of the medium any more. Imagine what happens when most books are only available on e-readers and most e-readers no longer read the format the book was put out in (not so hard to imagine: think of some of the books that only exist on B&N Nook format and imagine that B&N goes under and nobody bothers to code a translator because "well most of it is on Kindle anyways", followed by B&N's servers shutting down and nobody having a remaining copy of the book anywhere).

      The longer copyright terms are, the more information we LOSE to bad circumstances and bitrot. For one of the most famous cases, consider the missing episodes of Dr. Who - the BBC now has a comparatively huge bounty out for anyone who has them, even if it's a really crappy telecine.

    4. Re:From who? by Smallpond · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This raises an interesting legal question. If I have a copy of a missing TV show episode, what claim would the copyright owner have if they don't have a copy? If I distribute it I'm violating the copyright. But I'm not taking anything from the owner because they can't do the same. The whole point of copyright is to preserve the right to distribute for the owners. In particular, it's NOT to prevent old episodes from being watched so that people will watch new episodes. Copyright is only for protecting that work, not other works using the same trademarks or characters.

    5. Re:From who? by swb · · Score: 1

      The right of ownership is to the intellectual property, the ephemeral content that is on every piece of media containing a copy, not any specific copy they might or might not own or have in their possession. It's the ideas, artistic works, etc.

      Aren't there plenty of "lost" negatives, master recordings, to movies, TV shows, records, etc? It's not like the people who own the copyright lose their copyright claims simply because they can't account for a copy of the media.

    6. Re:From who? by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      A great example. The BBC chose to copy over old 1/2 inch tapes, and possibly misfiled some episodes or just assumed that once the show was aired, that would be the end of it. Other examples from that era are common - for just two, there's the first Quatermass TV series (now public domain, but with only 2 parts of 6 still in existence, and Tales from Tomorrow, with about 43 of the original 85 episodes still in existence. (Here's a link for a legal download).):

      http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=subject%3A%22Tales%20Of%20Tomorrow%22

      What do examples like these prove?
      (I've picked examples from both sides of the Atlantic, just so this doesn't appear to somehow be just an English problem, and people don't draw the (in my opinion, unproved) conclusion that the BBC was less rational than US broadcasters).
      1. Copyrights had already been extended from early US and British laws by the times that these shows aired, but that didn't give the owners the incentive to hold onto them that was one of the purposes of extending those copyrights.
      2. Corporate owners (at least), lost potential profits in the future by their own shortsightedness, which has nothing to do with how much copyright protection they got. Of course, that short sightedness is simply human - who would have predicted all the advances in technology that would create any potential demand for these older works 50 to 60 years later.
      4. But this also means that the current crop of rights holders can't predict what the situation will be as they approach 2100 or so. Holding onto a right that you might benefit from in over 100 years is a high odds gamble. If there are any downsides, such as having to pay for archiving old records properly so they will last that long, that gamble now has a downside. This is why some large rights holders have been agitating the US government to pick up the cost of them proceeding in civil courts against copyright violators, and why they are trying to move more and more violations into the criminal law category where the state pays from taxes.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    7. Re:From who? by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      I hate to reply to my own post, but there's a right parenthesis in that first paragraph that should have been right after '2 parts of 6 still in existence', not way at the end of the paragraph.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    8. Re:From who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, it doesn't raise an interesting legal question.

      It may raise an interesting scenario to make it even more obvious that the legal privilege of copyright has little connection to either the presumed moral right of authors or the utilitarian premise of incentivizing new works that are used to justify it, but the legal question is as clear-cut as ever.

    9. Re:From who? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      Whatever happened to the Public Domain?

      Mickey Mouse will never enter the Public Domain while Disney's lobbyists draw breath. Whatever violence needs to be done to the copyright laws to ensure this will happen.

    10. Re:From who? by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

      O.K. First of all, give me a copy of that Dr. Who episode your obviously taking about. Second, if you sell it you are breaking the law. So you must give it to me for free.

      btw. can you point out which episode it is?
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Who_missing_episodes#List_of_lost_episodes

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    11. Re:From who? by tepples · · Score: 1

      Any IP is going to be owned by a large corp like Nintendo, who will want you to buy their console and not DIY

      Let me know when Mother or its SNES sequel Earthbound is made available on North American Virtual Console.

    12. Re:From who? by jadin · · Score: 1

      My wife just found the SEGA Genesis Classics Collection on Steam of all places.

      With smart phone gaming becoming popular, there might be a new market on previously 'abandoned' games.

      Didn't Atari recently enforce it's copyright on some 2600 games?

    13. Re:From who? by TheDormouse · · Score: 1

      Imagine what happens when most books are only available on e-readers and most e-readers no longer read the format the book was put out in (not so hard to imagine: think of some of the books that only exist on B&N Nook format and imagine that B&N goes under and nobody bothers to code a translator....

      Good thing the B&N books are in ePub, a free and open e-book format, which is really pretty much just HTML and easily translatable.

    14. Re:From who? by Smallpond · · Score: 1

      Mostly false. First, there is no such legal term as "intellectual property". Second, there is no ownership concept over "ideas", that's bizarre.

      Copyright protects "works" which covers all recordings in any form of a performance, show, piece of music, etc. As I said, distributing copies would violate copyright so don't make it sound like I'm advocating that or claiming that they lost their rights. That's not what I said. What I'm saying is that the copyright owners have a hard time claiming damages if they did not keep a copy of the work.

    15. Re:From who? by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 1

      They were replaced by the companies who own the rights making remakes and such as downloadable games on consoles and PC.

      Simply put, these companies see how Nintendo (and Namco) can sell you the same game 3 times, just by repackaging it over and over and with the reduced overhead of online distribution compared to replication and boxes in stores these companies now want to get in the act.

      Yeah, some stuff is just abandoned, like Hangly-Man, but the games you've heard of and want just won't be available for sale in the form you want.

      I agree it does suck.

      --
      http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
    16. Re:From who? by arose · · Score: 1

      Mickey Mouse has entered the public domain, now he's in the hands of trademark lawyers, so you still can't put it on the front of the box.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    17. Re:From who? by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      in the case of Doctor Who the BBC would pay you for your copy so that they could replace the "reconstruction" for that episode on the ROM sets.

      if you happen to have the Episode with the First Regeneration then the BBC will pay you a very literal TON of money.

      i think DR Who is one of the only shows that the original broadcaster actually cares about shows that got erased.

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    18. Re:From who? by Torodung · · Score: 1

      There is no copyright abandonment. It is simply the right to make a copy. Losing one's master copy doesn't invalidate that right.

      The copyright "owner" is not an owner at all. They are a "rights holder." The rights can even be split up (selling the "film distribution rights," etc.) amongst various holders. Such transfers of rights are contractual, and so they must have consideration in return. That is, the original rights holder gets paid when he transfers rights. It's at this "money for nothing" point where it often gets confused with physical property.

      Most importantly, though, you are the only owner in your example. You actually own the medium. Everyone else holds rights and claims upon what you have legally recorded onto that medium, and therefore what you might do with the contents, but they don't own squat if you own the tape containing the last remaining copy. You can make them pay for it, in fact.

      This is the time honored example of how copyright might do the opposite of what was intended in the U.S. Constitution (I,8,8) "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." Arguably, the best way to "promote" such a copy, in our digital age, is to copy that content like crazy so it is distributed across the globe, and cannot be lost in some single tape library.

      You can bet that law will never be passed, though.

    19. Re:From who? by tidepool · · Score: 1

      Thanks to Disney and the corrupt shills that have taken over the government, games made in the 1980s won't "expire copyright" and return to the public domain until sometime after 2100. If there isn't yet ANOTHER "Mickey Mouse Protection Act" copyright extension passed in the meantime.

      Part of the problem is that copyright doesn't take into account the life of the medium any more. Imagine what happens when most books are only available on e-readers and most e-readers no longer read the format the book was put out in (not so hard to imagine: think of some of the books that only exist on B&N Nook format and imagine that B&N goes under and nobody bothers to code a translator because "well most of it is on Kindle anyways", followed by B&N's servers shutting down and nobody having a remaining copy of the book anywhere).

      *this* is one, if not the major, reason I am hesitant about the entire ebook trend. I understand the concept of being able to read something *now*. I understand travelers being able to bring one of my entire bookshelves with them, wherever they go, without lots of heavy boxes. But paper doesn't expire (naturally, it decays, but lets face it, it will no doubt last a lot longer than many digital formats), cannot be 'revoked' without a typical BNE scene.

      And trees are a renewable resource. So, with the exception of the shipping required to get books to bookstores (if they even exist in the future, at this rate) and/or personal houses, they are pretty green friendly.

      Plus, who doesn't love a paper book? I just don't understand, I suppose.

    20. Re:From who? by jedidiah · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The idea of abandonment comes up because some of us rightly point out that this concept exists for real property. So when we see people try to conflate creative works with real property, we bring this idea into the discussion. Media moguls want all of the upside of property as a natural right but none of the possible downsides of it of course.

      So things like taxes and squatting are left for the rest of us to consider.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    21. Re:From who? by Warhawke · · Score: 1

      Part of what constitutes legal ownership of property is the right to exclude others from use of that property, with some non-discriminatory limitations on certain venues. Owning copyright doesn't just grant you the limitation of who can copy your product, it also allows you the use of limiting you can use your product. So it is perfectly within Disney's right to own the old Uncle Remus cartoons and refuse to publish them, thus refusing your ability to see the product legally entirely. That philosophy tends not to jive with our ideas of freedom of information in the Information Age, but they exist within many legal spectra of the modern world.

    22. Re:From who? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      It could be, if they paid in pennies...

    23. Re:From who? by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      The whole point of copyright and the letter of the law regarding copyright diverged long ago.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    24. Re:From who? by TheABomb · · Score: 1

      That would come out to £2548.28. And here I thought £2000 was a literal ton of money.

      (Note that while handing it over would be your civic duty, you can probably get a helluva lot more from a private collector.)

      --
      MSIE: The world's most standards-complaint web browser.
    25. Re:From who? by wmelnick · · Score: 1

      Incorrect. From a legal standpoint, Intellectual Property refers to any non-tangible property right. If you can hold it in your hand it is real property or a chattel, if not it is intellectual property. It is a umbrella phrase for Copyrights, Trademarks, Patents and the like.

    26. Re:From who? by rerogo · · Score: 1

      Well, the BBC is British and presumably paying in pounds. 2000 pounds to a ton...

    27. Re:From who? by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      What happened to the second-hand market? Buying a used ROM from someone is a way to get your hands on a legit game, isn't it? Assuming this someone got their ROM legit of course.

      The games now still played tend to be the more popular games of their days; the unpopular ones tend to be forgotten soon enough. Them haven been popular means lots of ROMs were sold back then. Surely there are plenty of people that have them sitting around doing nothing. Finding them may be an issue but well there's always Ebay and Craigslist and many other second hand trade sites. Possibly even something dedicated to these vintage ROMs and related stuff.

    28. Re:From who? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Thank Sonny Bono. The biggest problem with copyrights are completely the fault of that man.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    29. Re:From who? by gr8_phk · · Score: 1

      As RMS and others have stated repeatedly. There is NO legal definition of "Intellectual Property" it is a recent umbrella term that covers copyrights, trademarks, and patents. In this case we are talking about copyright. I like the point made by Smallpond and have considered it's applicability to old software I own. It's a really interesting question. If you've got the last remaining instance of something, then you should be able to register your own copyright on it - how can someone else claim to own something they can not show you? It's a question of practical vs legal. It also show what the "legal owner" thought the value of said item is - zero.

    30. Re:From who? by ynp7 · · Score: 1

      Not the best example for eboooks. Nook uses ePub, which is just zipped HTML/XML. Getting the files out of BN might be a problem, but not cracking the DRM and reading the content.

    31. Re:From who? by zevans · · Score: 1

      i think DR Who is one of the only shows that the original broadcaster actually cares about shows that got erased.

      Possibly because it's one of the few media companies with any sort of organisational continuity between 1963 and now... which neatly demonstrates another issue with current practice in corporate intellectual property.

      --
      "... and more and more now there are all kinds of electronic goodies available" -- Pink Floyd 1972
    32. Re:From who? by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      You distributing it would be copyright infringement plan and simple, just like any case where the copyright owner did still have a copy.

      You reaming his ass in a sale of the copy and profit sharing contract for $$ up front and 90% of the profits from selling additional copies would, however, be perfectly legal.

    33. Re:From who? by Moryath · · Score: 1

      Don't forget Do Not Adjust Your Set and At Last The 1948 Show...

  3. ROM Marketplace? by Azadre · · Score: 1

    There is no model for legal roms. The only authorized emulators are built with newer gaming systems (e.g. the 3DS emulating GBA games). There needs to be a model, however.

    1. Re:ROM Marketplace? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      ROMs don't automatically mean emulator. ROMs aren't illegal. Please, quit this thinking.
      And on that topic, emulators aren't illegal either. Not even in the most retarded countries when it comes to IP law.
      Companies want you to THINK it is illegal (like the recent Atari who still think they hold control over the Atari trademark), but it isn't.

      If you want actual games from companies, you are going to have to go through a strict process with the developers of those games, be it Nintendo or some random company.
      You have to get a licence. You get the game, quite literally in ROM modules form sometimes, you plug it in to your hardware that they have to inspect and approve of (or a 3rd party approval process who manages the arcade cabinet industry members), and that is it.
      Note the hard, strict, and additionally that you'll likely not be approved if it is for personal use unless you offer to pay out of the ass.

    2. Re:ROM Marketplace? by Joce640k · · Score: 2, Informative

      There is no model for legal roms.

      Sure there is. Just buy PCBs for the games you're interested in. Non-working PCBs will do.

      --
      No sig today...
    3. Re:ROM Marketplace? by hedwards · · Score: 2

      Indeed, that's what I do. The trick is getting an appropriate device for dumping the ROMs. I personally use the www.retrode.org, but there are other devices on the market. The great thing is that one doesn't need to worry about being busted, as it's completely legal. Plus, they don't have any way of knowing that one is dumping carts to disk.

    4. Re:ROM Marketplace? by daedae · · Score: 1

      Ah, glad to see somebody beat me to saying this. One of my buddies in undergrad had the same "I don't want to pirate" mentality, but he wanted to play Super Metroid sometime in that period between a real SNES being readily available and the knockoffs you can buy for $30 being available. His solution, of course, was to get ZSNES and the ROM, but he also went out to a GameStop or something and bought a used copy of the cart.

    5. Re:ROM Marketplace? by Lanteran · · Score: 1

      In some countries It's legal to download roms if you already own the game- which is what I do with my huge cache of vintage games. Easier than dusting off the NES.

      --
      "People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
    6. Re:ROM Marketplace? by WNight · · Score: 1

      And on that topic, emulators aren't illegal either.

      Actually, in the USA, they probably are. Under old copyright law, no. But under the DMCA, in any practical sense, very likely yes.

      Almost all ROMs are protected by hardware and software means. To access that for any reason other than one explicitly approved by the copyright holder, with a limited set of exceptions such as library use, sounds like a DMCA violation.

      Let this be a lesson to people in other countries. The USA's laws are unrealistic and unreasonable and will have to be thrown off at some point. Best to do it before adopting it if you still have the chance. Write to your representatives and let them know that letting foreign parties dictate your laws is a fundamental violation of their duties.

      Not even in the most retarded countries when it comes to IP law.

      That would be the USA, yes.

      If not the DMCA then patents. Any given ROM likely contains patented features and using those in a way they weren't licensed for can be a violation even if done by an end user. The law is just that ridiculous.

      Companies want you to THINK it is illegal, but it isn't.

      True dat. I had it out with id Software on usenet over them claiming it was illegal to write a level editor for Doom. Also, later when they claimed modding Q3 so it'd allow clients without checking them via the master keyserver would be illegal.

      And Blizzard when they claimed it's be illegal (for me in Canada) to modify one of their games to avoid broken DRM.

      But it's getting to the point where they're right, everything is illegal there. Common sense and traditional legal wisdow, like that software must be implicitly licensed to be used or it couldn't reasonably be offered for sale, is disappearing under draconian nonsense like the DMCA

    7. Re:ROM Marketplace? by dakameleon · · Score: 1

      The DMCA would only be relevant if you're routing around copy prevention measures. I don't know for a first-hand fact, but I wouldn't think that an emulator running a ROM from the 80s or early 90s is going to be dealing with much by way of copy prevention, software or hardware.

      Patents would relate to the method of rendering the game; it is likely the patent would refer to hardware and specific hardware-based techniques, so a pure software emulator may be able to route around that.

      --
      Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
  4. not going to find it by Trepidity · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The only real non-pirate way to get a significant number of ROMs is to buy the physical games and the equipment to image a ROM from them.

    A few university libraries have started digitally preserving culturally significant games, and that's what they end up doing, because they can't really pirate the ROMs, yet can't buy legitimate digital copies either.

    1. Re:not going to find it by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      You mean copy the ROMs from the hardware without the permission of the copyright holder? No, that's still piracy.

    2. Re:not going to find it by Trepidity · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you legitimately own a copy on some medium, medium-shifting to another one is legal, just like you can rip your own music CDs to mp3s.

    3. Re:not going to find it by Spazmania · · Score: 2

      You don't have to buy the entire game, You can generally find the boards that were removed from the cabinets when the cabinets were upgraded to some other game. Prices range from $20 to several hundred dollars depending on the popularity of the game.

      The legal status of copying those roms on to modern hardware is in doubt. The moral status is more clear: of course you can put the board in the closet and do the minimum it takes to run the software on modern hardware.

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    4. Re:not going to find it by davester666 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It depends entirely upon the patch of ground you happen to be standing on and the relative quality of your lawyers as to whether it is or is not "legal".

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    5. Re:not going to find it by mysidia · · Score: 2

      If you legitimately own a copy on some medium, medium-shifting to another one is legal, just like you can rip your own music CDs to mp3s.

      Yes... but is it legal to buy the CD and then download the MP3 version of the same thing from someone else who doesn't have a right to upload that MP3 to you?

      Seems like buying a legitimate copy of the media and then obtaining the ROM from someone not authorized to give it to you would be similar. Unless you are going to, er, try and dump the rom yourself from your own media....

    6. Re:not going to find it by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      I believe that under the DMCA, a copy-protection device has to be deliberately for the purpose of copy protection; not every physical fact that makes copying harder is legally a copy-protection device. There are also a number of safe-harbors that permit circumventing DRM for various purposes, such as interoperability.

      In any case, I would be willing to be that if, say, the Entertainment Software Association sued the Stanford Library over its game-preservation program, they would lose. In fact they are almost certainly not going to sue them, in part due to the risk of setting a negative precedent.

    7. Re:not going to find it by hedwards · · Score: 1

      That's not true. Being soldered onto a proprietary board is not the same thing as copy control, unless you've got some actual case law to base that assertion on. The matter hasn't been litigated and the main reason why the case was settled the way it was back then, was because the equipment necessary to use the carts was still relatively inexpensive and easily obtainable. Getting a console that properly plays some of those old games is getting harder and harder and at this point it's easier to use 3rd party gear.

      As for arcade games, that's never been litigated AFAIK, mainly because they've been expensive and hard to get ones hands on.

    8. Re:not going to find it by Nursie · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you really have no idea what you're talking about do you?

      The DMCA and similar laws make it illegal to circumvent copy protection measures, not format shifting. I doubt many arcade games from last century even had copy protection.

    9. Re:not going to find it by Damarkus13 · · Score: 1

      Nope. The DMCA prohibits unauthorized decryption, but simply dumping unaltered data for backup is not prohibited. Similarly 1:1 backup copies of DVDs are okay, but decrypting the stream to remove previews or compress it to fit on a single layer disc is not.

    10. Re:not going to find it by mysidia · · Score: 5, Informative

      DMCA. Repeat after me, DMCA. The fact arcade games are in proprietary ROMs or even soldered to the mobo, you removing them to "archive" or medium shift, it illegal in the US

      Except that an Exception to the DMCA was made:

      37 CFR 201.40 Exemption to prohibition against circumvention

      1. Compilations consisting of lists of Internet locations blocked by commercially marketed filtering software [...]
      2. Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete. [...]
      3. Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and which require the original media or hardware as a condition of access. A format shall be considered obsolete if the machine or system necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace.
      4. Literary works distributed in ebook format when all existing ebook editions of the work (including digital text editions made available by authorized entities) contain access controls that prevent the enabling of the ebook's read-aloud function and that prevent the enabling of screen readers to render the text into a specialized format.
    11. Re:not going to find it by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      Usual I'm not a lawyer etc but yes downloading something you already have the rights to is legal. You may need to show you owned a copy before the time you downloaded it to a judge though. The uploading you often do as part of downloading is not though (in the US).

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    12. Re:not going to find it by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 1

      I doubt many arcade games from last century even had copy protection.
       
      Many arcade PCB's had components that were embedded in epoxy to prevent anyone from tampering with them.

      --
      If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
    13. Re:not going to find it by ADRA · · Score: 1
      --
      Bye!
    14. Re:not going to find it by Fast+Thick+Pants · · Score: 1

      Bravo, that's the final word for EVERY legal advice question!

      ...Well, almost. If you're playing at the big boy's table you can get law created or changed in your favor, so tally up your lobbyists along with your lawyers.

      Face it -- starting off with the "I'm a good little boy and I don't want to break any laws" attitude is pretty pathetic. The entire 20th-21st century copyright ecosystem is in place because of bold people who dared to dream that they could be richer if they got the laws written in their favor. It's gone way, way past just compensation to creators; it's just a legally enforced racket. I can understand compliance out of fear, but nobody's going to send armed BSA goons to audit your MAME cabinet, so going out of your way to play along is a little perverse.

      (Maybe O.P. is some sort of submissive fetishist?)

    15. Re:not going to find it by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Actually it's generally *not* legal. It's been pretty clearly established that as far as US copyright law is concerned, the "second copy rule" (backup in case the original is lost) does not apply to downloading a version of the copyrighted material over the Internet.

      Not that I would argue that it should be illegal, just that it has all been set up by the content holders to work that way - they just make too much money selling consumers the same content in new formats. Though if you downloaded a crappy quality version of a movie that you already owned on DVD, I doubt anyone would bother to sue. Basically, is it illegal? Yes. Is it unethical? Personally, I don't think so.

      What's really murky (ethically more than legally) are things like movies with tons of formats released. If you own the DVD (or the VHS tape!), should that give you the right to the BD? Or if you own the 2D BD, do you have a right to copy the 3D BD? How about the reverse? What about unrated versions, special editions, director's cuts, remasters, etc? Or if you bought it on iTunes, but you actually want to watch it on a non-Apple device?

      A lot of people hate the idea of buying digital-only copies of movies, but when done correctly (ie. with centralized rights and the ability to stream to any device in perpetuity, regardless of format, service, whatever) it seems like the best way to treat a right to a movie as an actual right to watch that movie, not some bastardized right to one specific physical version on one specific format of the same damn movie. Ultraviolet seems to be an attempt to do this, but given that it has no model for compensating the content providers (why would Apple want to pay to stream a movie to you if you bought it on Amazon, or vice-versa) it's probably going to be DOA...

    16. Re:not going to find it by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 2

      Apparently Slashdot has decided Informative is Funny?

      I give up moderating.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    17. Re:not going to find it by TheDormouse · · Score: 1

      Legal or not, it stands to reason that if you medium-shift something that
      1) you have paid for and have proof you paid for, and
      2) you aren't making any money by medium-shifting (i.e. not selling the original medium to someone else, or redistributing the digital copy)
      then the original content owner has little reason to waste their time jumping on your back when they could find someone who is breaking one of those two rules and have an easy case.

      Sure, it's legally shaky ground and the original content owners probably have better lawyers, but reason occasionally triumphs and it's fun to live dangerously.

    18. Re:not going to find it by tgd · · Score: 1

      That is incorrect. You can't run OSX on hackintoshes because it violates the license. You can't run an OEM copy of Windows on another workstation, because it violates the license.

      ROM licensing was far more restrictive -- in many cases you couldn't even move the existing boards to new cabinets legally!

    19. Re:not going to find it by crankyspice · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you legitimately own a copy on some medium, medium-shifting to another one is legal, just like you can rip your own music CDs to mp3s.

      Incorrect, at least under U.S. copyright law. RIAA v. Diamond, 98-56727 (9th Cir., June 15, 1999) (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1054784.html), the seminal case on the issue, found a fair use in "space shifting" music to MP3 players, but did so under the auspices of the Audio Home Recording Act (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap10.html), which carves out specific exemptions applicable to sound recordings. No such provision(s) exist for video game ROMs, in any jurisdiction I'm aware of.

      --
      geek. lawyer.
    20. Re:not going to find it by Warhawke · · Score: 1

      You are mistaken. It is legal to format shift in cases where you have not either a) broken the licensing terms to which you agreed (EULA), or b) intentionally or unintentionally circumvented DRM. This is why AnyDVD cannot be sold in the United States (downloaded yes, sold no).

    21. Re:not going to find it by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      According to many older court rulings...no. According to one or two of the more recent music cloud storage rulings...maybe.

      But every court opinion I know of makes format shifting for something you already own legal, so that's most certainly the safest bet for the person who's moral compass won't let them avoid even the stupidest of bought-and-paid-for laws.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    22. Re:not going to find it by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Mysidia postied it already, so just linking to his post instead of whoring it myself.

      Re: 37 CFR 201.40

    23. Re:not going to find it by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Yes... but is it legal to buy the CD and then download the MP3 version of the same thing from someone else who doesn't have a right to upload that MP3 to you?

      I think the courts have ruled "no" on that, but im not 100% sure.

    24. Re:not going to find it by CTalkobt · · Score: 1

      If you legitimately own a copy on some medium, medium-shifting to another one is legal, just like you can rip your own music CDs to mp3s.

      Incorrect, at least under U.S. copyright law. RIAA v. Diamond, 98-56727 (9th Cir., June 15, 1999) (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1054784.html), the seminal case on the issue, found a fair use in "space shifting" music to MP3 players, but did so under the auspices of the Audio Home Recording Act (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap10.html), which carves out specific exemptions applicable to sound recordings. No such provision(s) exist for video game ROMs, in any jurisdiction I'm aware of.

      So... there's an exemption for Music but not for everything else so you read the negative into it? Generally, in case law as I understand it (not a laywer) - the absence of a case proving a poiint can't be inferred to prove a point.

      --
      There's a gorilla from Manilla whose a fella that stinks of vanilla and has salmonella.
    25. Re:not going to find it by crankyspice · · Score: 1

      Mysidia postied it already, so just linking to his post instead of whoring it myself.

      Re: 37 CFR 201.40

      In the very specific context where all of the criteria of that regulation are met, there may be an argument for space shifting. To my knowledge, it's never been tested in court. That said, the blanket statement "if you own a copy of something, you can space shift it, like you can rip CDs to MP3s" (paraphrased) is still not true.

      --
      geek. lawyer.
    26. Re:not going to find it by crankyspice · · Score: 1

      So... there's an exemption for Music but not for everything else so you read the negative into it? Generally, in case law as I understand it (not a laywer) - the absence of a case proving a poiint can't be inferred to prove a point.

      17 USC 106 makes it the exclusive right of the copyright holder to do, or to authorize, reproducing a copyrighted work. 17 USC 1001 et seq carve out some exemptions for digital audio (sound recordings). There are a couple of other extremely limited carve-outs (and you might be able to argue 17 USC 117 applies; I haven't had the occasion to revisit it since Vernor v. Autodesk was decided (09-35969) by the 9th Circuit last year), but unless you fit into one of those, unauthorized reproduction is a copyright infringement. (Setting aside any possible defenses, such as fair use, that may apply; those are fact-heavy analyses decided on a case-by-case basis.)

      So, in this context, yeah, absence of a case explicitly authorizing "space shifting" of video game ROMs can be inferred to prove a point, since in the absence of caselaw to the contrary the statutory provisions control.

      --
      geek. lawyer.
    27. Re:not going to find it by Nursie · · Score: 1

      You realise that was to stop people overwriting games, not to stop them being copied?

    28. Re:not going to find it by 2short · · Score: 1

      Why is this considered an "Insightful" point on every legal question?

      If the "patch of ground" you are standing on is the United States, format shifting is legal. If your lawyer is too incompetent to cite a clear cut supreme court decision, format shifting is still legal.

  5. Buy a regular cabinet instead. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

    Piracy is inevitable with MAME, unless you dump your own ROMs. No one offers legit ROMs for sale, and I'm taking it you're not the type who plays modern arcade games like Street Fighter or Blaz Blue.

    Just buy a cab and boards instead.

    --
    Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    1. Re:Buy a regular cabinet instead. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Dumping your own ROMs is "piracy" too, most places. The US does have the Fair Use defence, which barely legalizes it and some (not all) other copyright laws have similar defences or provisions, but these may or may not actually cover this situation. In England, for example, birthplace of copyright as we know it, format shifting (ripping CDs or dumping ROMs) is illegal, and you can thank Queen Anne and the Unionists that the same shit applies in Scotland.

  6. What is this "piracy?" by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Keep in mind that every unofficial copy of a protected work isn't necessarily copyright violation. Look up fair use, and consult a lawyer for its application to a given field. You can also ask that the library of Congress put a DMCA exemption on a particular use, IIRC, although that would be more for the field than for your personal use.

    http://transformativeworks.org/projects/vidding-press-release-DMCA-EXEMPTION

    --
    -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    1. Re:What is this "piracy?" by jonbryce · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You have to buy a legitimate copy of the ROM, and then you can maybe exercise your fair use rights to format-shift it. However finding a legitimate copy is going to be pretty difficult, and I guess ebay is pretty much the only option.

    2. Re:What is this "piracy?" by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Informative

      Fair use is a defence. It doesn't come into play until after lawyers are hired and court is attended. A DMCA exemption also doesn't automatically make something legal - it's only an exemption from the DMCA, not plain old-fashioned copyright law.

    3. Re:What is this "piracy?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Fair use is a defence. It doesn't come into play until after lawyers are hired and court is attended.

      Actually, the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. Section 107 specifically states:

      "...the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."

      Now when the law itself spells out what the permissible actions are, it seems to me you don't need to get to court to determine whether it's legal.

      (Captcha: arraigns)

    4. Re:What is this "piracy?" by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      So, assume I'm a not-yet-published but aspiring author, and my claim of fair use is that it's 'scholarship', as I'm planning to write a textbook. Alternately, I'm planning to write a more popular work, say a novel, and so my fair use falls under 'research'. You're claiming, if I understand you, that if I got a cease and desist notice and responded to it with a letter making such a fair use claim, that would settle it to where both I and a normal rights holder would feel it was resolved? I'm assuming you don't mean your statement to include clearly unreasonable litigation, where one party sues or ignores claims even though the law shows they have no reasonable or realistic chance of winning.
                I think the example I started with is enough to throw doubt on that claim. Wouldn't a not-yet-published author run into problems that would be easy enough to work around if they could only cite a history as a successful writer? I'm pretty sure that a well known author (say Slashdot's own Steven King), could ask for copies of a great many things saying that they might be relevant to a book he was simply considering writing, and still have such a claim be respected, but what about the first timer?
                More generally, the whole structure you've cited reads to me more like a big reason to litigate - I cites some examples of fair use, but saying 'purposes such as' certainly sounds like it's not listing all of the possible purposes, and in only one case (teaching), does it bother to give any more guidance. That's far from eliminating sources of legal conflict.

      Here's a real world example. In scholarly works analyzing H. P. Lovecraft's works, the question of HPL's unfortunate racism comes up. (Well, really, there's no question he was a racist, but whether he acted towards individuals he met in person in the same way as he wrote about how to deal with them collectively is more debatable - HPL had a tendency to meet individual people and pronounce them afterwards to friends as much better than their racial origins would indicate).
                Now, to analyze his works with that factor included means comparing multiple editions of printed works, plus what's obtainable of his manuscripts (not always complete). If a scholar of Lovecraft Studies wants to know how much of the descriptions of the 'starfish headed old ones' in HPL's "At the Mountains of Madness" as 'human' or 'having human like virtues' is actually Lovecraft and how much comes from John W. Campbell Jr. , they may need copies of both various printings of the novella, and of both HPL's and Campbell's other writings.
                It might even be advisable to go as far afield as reading some of Campbell's "Don A Stuart" stories such as "Twilight" to see if some similar phrases pop up there.
              Now, how much of that is fair use for a scholarly article in Lovecraft Studies on HPLs personal definition of humanity?

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    5. Re:What is this "piracy?" by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      I guess ebay is pretty much the only option.

      and yard sales, flea markets, Craigslist even.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  7. I wonder... by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 1

    I wonder if you own an old defunc machine, if you could legally then own a rom on a remake? I mean people used to say you could backup your games to floppy in case the original died. I think some games for c64 even told you to do this.

    I also wonder if you can rent digital copies of media over the internet if you own a copy, but are not using it at the time.

    1. Re:I wonder... by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      I wonder if you own an old defunc machine, if you could legally then own a rom on a remake?

      That used to be the standard disclaimer years ago. People distributing ROMs would say you needed to own the same title's hardware to legally play the ROM; essentially the boards from the cabinet (working or otherwise). Of course few people worried about that.

      Now, whether or not that was adequate to claim "ownership" is another matter.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    2. Re:I wonder... by hedwards · · Score: 1

      They also used to say that you were in the clear if you deleted the file with in 24 hours. AFAIK that was never based on any statute or legal precedence, just a way of looking like it was something other than piracy.

      At the end of the day, you're much better off just dumping the carts yourself, the equipment these days is often times not hard to get and fairly inexpensive, less than some of the harder to get carts.

  8. Re:I am not a lawyer, but... by Stormthirst · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If you are using the backup for something other than as a backup, then it's not a backup.

    Depending on which country you are in, however, you might be permitted to format shift. The UK that's not legal, even though everyone (and probably their grandmother) is format shifting their CDs into MP3s these days. The UK government have started looking at this ridiculous position with a view to changing the law. Lets hope they have an attack of sense, and decide that because 90% of the population are doing it, that democracy should prevail and legalise it. Especially considering I've never heard anyone being prosecuted for ripping their CDs, ever.

  9. Online Auctions (Caveat emptor) by rockclimber · · Score: 1

    Try Ebay. however, most of what you will find are pirated games anyway. (Wouldn't it be nice if electronic works went into public domain after 10 or 15 years, or after the company creating the work folded up?)

    1. Re:Online Auctions (Caveat emptor) by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      It would be nice, and rational. Too bad copyright law is anti-consumer and pretty much only benefits corporations.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    2. Re:Online Auctions (Caveat emptor) by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Theoretically it's supposed to be balanced by fair use and limited period of protection. In practice it's gotten really out of hand over the last hundred years or so and mostly serves to stifle creation of new cultural items.

    3. Re:Online Auctions (Caveat emptor) by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is unfortunate. It actually causes legal issues for people that want to preserve history. An appropriate example for this article; say I wanted to preserve a collection of vintage games. I expose myself to legal risk by doing so, but to my knowledge there is not a legal repository of these games in existence where a person can access them to learn. Music is similar. Undoubtedly there have been some games, or some music that are no longer in existence because the original media is worn with age.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
  10. Virtual Console... by Windwraith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's the whole idea behind them, selling you ROMs and a license to use them.

    1. Re:Virtual Console... by giltwist · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I've actually bought a couple of the old SNES rpg favorites on my Wii's virtual console. I actually owned the old cartridges, once upon a time. However, teenager me said "Pfft, the playstation will make me forget all about the SNES." How wrong I was. I feel legally justified in owning the roms, but its nice having proof for the games I couldn't live without.

    2. Re:Virtual Console... by Windwraith · · Score: 1

      I actually only purchased the games that I didn't own physically because they were never given an Euro release, or from consoles I didn't own, like the original Splatterhouse.

      Buying a game twice...not happening, they already got full profit (and European prices at that!) from my purchase.

    3. Re:Virtual Console... by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      I have a question: If I buy Super Mario World on my Wii, is it then legal for me to download the ROM so I can also play it on my laptop?

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    4. Re:Virtual Console... by howlingfrog · · Score: 1

      "Selling you ROMs" and "a license to use them" are mutually exclusive. You don't need a license to use your own property. You're either being sold a ROM that becomes your property (in which case you can use it however you like) OR you're being sold a license to access a ROM that remains the licensor's property (in which case you can use it in the ways permitted by the terms of the license).

      --
      The original Howling Frog is a fictional character and has no UID.
    5. Re:Virtual Console... by Windwraith · · Score: 1

      Technically yes, I think. But I am no lawyer. It *should* be.

    6. Re:Virtual Console... by Windwraith · · Score: 1

      I was being redundant on purpose, to get the point across you know, but you are absolutely spot on there.

    7. Re:Virtual Console... by DocHoncho · · Score: 1

      I don't want to sound like a troll, but why do you care about being "legally justified" about downloading something which will not deprive anyone of anything, let alone revenue. It's not like you can buy a copy of 90% of these old games new (thus benefiting the original publisher). Buying a used copy of the PCB for Dig Dug is essentially the same to Namco as downloading the ROM. At no point in either transaction do they benefit in any way shape or form. We're not talking about modern AAA titles here.

      I don't want to come off as a "download whatever you want, whenever you want it" proponent, but when it comes to these (in technology terms) ancient titles, really, what's the moral hold up here? Why are you wasting your time wringing your hands about whether you might get sued (you wont) for downloading a ROM copy of Galaga to put in the DIY arcade cabinet you made?

      Lets face it: these titles are not generally available to purchase, thus you are not in any way shape or form depriving anyone of anything. Not even the so called "lost sale" fallacy. All this "buy the PCB and dump it yourself" nonsense is just a silly little mind game people play with them selves to justify an action which has no immoral connotations. The likelihood that you are going to get sued for possessing a contraband ROM image of Galaga is so unbelievably small that wasting even a single thought on the possibility is ridiculous.

      Oh, and if the whole point of the exercise is for you to feel superior to all those nasty pirates then you really need to re-evaluate your priorities.

      --
      Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
    8. Re:Virtual Console... by DocHoncho · · Score: 1

      IMO, the correct answer is: "Who cares?"

      I look at it this way. There are only two ways to legally play Super Mario World. One, own (or acquire, possibly at great expense) a copy of the original cartridge, or two, purchase a copy on the Wii Virtual Console. Now we start with the set of all persons who desire to play an old title like Super Mario World (arguably a small number). Intersect that with the number of people who own, or wish to own a Wii. You now have a fairly small (IMO) set of possible sales. So what about the the difference of those sets, the ones who want to play the game but don't own a Wii? What's their recourse? I personally don't own a Wii. I don't even want one. So my only options are to spend more money than the game is really worth on either the cartridge or Wii+SMW on VC, or just download the damned ROM, play it twice a month when I'm drunk and feeling nostalgic and forget about all this hand-wringing bullshit.

      I fully understand the point of view that pirating content is not something people should be doing. But we're not talking about about CoD 4 or the latest Lady Gaga record that you can purchase today in such a way that it benefits the original creator. We're talking about things that are not generally available in a form in which a large proportion of those interested in the content are able to consume. I get it Nintendo, protect all that precious IP like Caveman Games with an iron fist. Hate to set a bad precedent. But let's be honest, you are not, in any meaningful way impacting the bottom line of Nintendo when you download ROMs for these games.

      I will admit that I've downloaded recent titles from torrent sites and the like. And in 90% of the cases, I played it for a few days, didn't care for it and deleted it. The ones I did like, I went and bought it, either on Steam (weekend sales FTW) or a box. Whether I install the copy I bought or not, at least I know I supported the creator. Just because I can't possibly support the original creator why should I feel bad about it? It's not my fault that they refuse to open an extra revenue stream for people who honestly want to pay for a copy of a game they can use in a way they wish to. Hell, most of the creators of these games are either defunct or were bought by some holding company who probably couldn't care less in the first place.

      --
      Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
    9. Re:Virtual Console... by evilandi · · Score: 1

      Yup. That was my thought too. The Nintendo Wii has a pretty good library of classic, original videogames and the emulation is also pretty good.

      Buy a Wii, a "classic controller" (dual analogue stick) and pay for legit downloads. You can probably hack the Nintendo Classic Controller to fit into an arcade cabinet's 8-way stick + 4 fire buttons + start + select without too much fuss.

      No, it doesn't give you the flexibility of MAME, but it does solve the question posed; legality.

      Having been a teenager in the 1980s I've been quite impressed with the breadth and accuracy of the Wii Virtual Console. Sure, it hasn't stopped me from also running MAME on my Linux netbook and downloading a few abandonware titles, but if all I had was the Wii Virtual Console plus the legit titles, would my retro gaming need be sufficiently satisfied? Yes, I think it would.

      It's not everything. But it's good enough.

      --
      Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
  11. You are unfortunately out of luck. by Hott+of+the+World · · Score: 1

    You, a single person, possible a collection of a hundred or so similar people, are

    1. Asking dozens of giant corporations to provide legal licenses to use their software on your system, in a way they haven't accounted for.
    2. Expecting them to take the time out of their busy schedule to write over a license agreement, a copy of the software (which they don't have, unless they have copied the ROM themselves), and expect you to use the software in accordance with the license agreement (which if you ever sell or give away the arcade machine, would be in violation of the software license)

    Understand that aside from the possible liabilities of releasing such software to parties which may not have the best interest of the companies at heart, what can the companies expect in return? You're looking a few hundred dollars for a few lawyers to come up with the agreement for each game, and then another few hundred for the software development time to make sure these "legal" roms aren't bundled in with all the other illegal software currently floating around the internet.

    "More trouble than its worth" applies to serving a niche market just as well as it applies to serving a lawsuit against someone emulating.

    --
    | - | - |
    1. Re:You are unfortunately out of luck. by mister_playboy · · Score: 1

      In attempting to "not be a pirate", you have the chance to confront the complex and contradictory legal realities of the situation and realize how the "piracy" isn't as cut and dried as IP holders make it out to be. There is no way to do what you want to do legally, the option does not exist.

      Just by trying to roll your own setup, you are aligning yourself with the lawbreakers from a corporate standpoint. You think of yourself as a non-pirate, but that's not really true. If you want to follow the rules, buy a Wii and enjoy those games Nintendo has seen fit to allow you to emulate.

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
  12. You want legal DIY, go all the way. by Tharsman · · Score: 1

    Same way all those things are available, you can also get the kits to extract the data out of an old NES cart.

    The legal way is to get the original game, the kit, and rip it yourself.

    Other than that: piracy.

    1. Re:You want legal DIY, go all the way. by tepples · · Score: 1

      you can also get the kits to extract the data out of an old NES cart.

      There is the Kazzo kit, but it has the extremely low production volume of a product hand-made by an enthusiast. Is there anything more widely available?

  13. Dump your own by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    With a Retrode you can dump your own SNES and Genesis ROMs as easily as plugging in a cartridge to a USB mass storage device, and adapters have been made to also dump Atari 2600, N64, Gameboy, Gameboy Color, Gameboy Advance, Turbo Graphx 16, and Virtual Boy ROMs. Probably as legal as it's going to get if you own the cartridges - the Retrode might not classify as a circumvention device as it simply asks the cartridges for data and the cartridges supply it. The few cartridges with copy protection that don't simply surrender their data (eg. SMRPG) tend to not work.

    Given that you mentioned MAME you're probably more interested in arcade ROMs; maybe an EEPROM reader would be more useful to you? Much trickier though.

    1. Re:Dump your own by PktLoss · · Score: 1

      I might just wimp out.

      I mentioned i'm interested in Rampage, I have no doubt I'll be able to find the arcade rom for it. eBay is more than happy to sell me a SNES cart of the same game. So I'll balance my ROM downloads with cartridge purchases. No, they're not quite the same, but it's close.

  14. Copyright Term Reduction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Alternatively, think how nice the world would be with a 20 year copyright term (same as patents, and patent holders are still going strong). Every January 1st a large batch of new ROMs would become available free of charge.

    Next time you are at any political meeting, just bring up why inventors get 20 years of protection and why this term wouldn't work for everyone else. You can use "Happy Birthday to You" as an example (bonus points if you can let the politician(s) sing it as a 'public performance' first).

    1. Re:Copyright Term Reduction by temcat · · Score: 1

      Not really an answer to the topic starter's question, but very much this.
      Modern copyright is retarded, and its terms are outrageous. Nobody should ever feel guilty for copying long unavailable works, just make sure you aren't caught.

    2. Re:Copyright Term Reduction by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      I was also thinking that 20 years would be quite optimal time. On most works, no money is milked any more (and the product not in sale), but the artwork could still provide enjoyment (and historical value).

  15. A noble goal, that by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    There are many titles that were on obsolete systems people would love to play again. Unfortunately the publishers behind those titles don't care about the people who still want to play them. Either you have to ignore the legal ramifications (you could, of course, try to challenge them in court if they actually came after you) or not do it at all. The choices aren't great, but those are about it for you.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  16. factor 5 has some stuff out by infurnus · · Score: 2
    Bonk/BCKid, Katakis, and R-Type:
    http://www.factor5.de/downloads.shtml

    Factor 5s first game as a free download for everybody who loved the Amiga or just plain historical interest – also known in other parts of Europe as Denaris. 50 frames per second of high-adrenaline shooting action very reminiscent of R-Type.
    Note: This only works 100% with the UAE emulator .
    Katakis, R-Type and BC KID are not provided for the public domain. You are entitled to download and use these games only for non-commercial purposes. All copyrights are retained by their owners. Any distribution of this data through any medium unless specifically permitted by the copyright owners is not allowed.

    1. Re:factor 5 has some stuff out by PktLoss · · Score: 1

      thanks for the heads up!

    2. Re:factor 5 has some stuff out by Unequivocal · · Score: 1

      This site doesn't appear to be any more legal than the other ones you expressed concern about. Look on their license page.. They don't have the legal standing to offer you these games for non-commercial use, they're just operating under a legal theory that pirating abandoned games for non-commercial use is legal (or at least it's not going to get you or they into trouble). Very similar to the underdogs website theory (http://www.hotud.org/).

    3. Re:factor 5 has some stuff out by equex · · Score: 1

      They seem to be the guys behind the original Turrican game (wich was a legendary classic). So maybe they still have the rights to that. Seems to me they are trying to make a buck on the Turrican trademark and mooch off some abandonware-legal-loophole at the same time. Can't say i blame them.

      --
      Can I light a sig ?
    4. Re:factor 5 has some stuff out by infurnus · · Score: 1

      This site doesn't appear to be any more legal than the other ones you expressed concern about. Look on their license page.. They don't have the legal standing to offer you these games for non-commercial use, they're just operating under a legal theory that pirating abandoned games for non-commercial use is legal (or at least it's not going to get you or they into trouble). Very similar to the underdogs website theory (http://www.hotud.org/).

      Not quite sure what this comment is about. Factor 5 made Katakis, and have the rights to the Amiga versions of R-Type and BC Kid. It's kind of too late to debate as to whether or not they can offer these games for download.

    5. Re:factor 5 has some stuff out by wildstoo · · Score: 1

      It's not "legal" but the single, overriding fact is that if there's no money involved, there's no problem.

      If a game isn't commercially available, and never will be again, then go nuts. Nobody is gonna care, ever.

      If, on the other hand, a copyright holder thinks there might still be value in their property (apart from geek sentimental value) then they might start C&Ding.

      The VAST majority of games on MAME are, for all intents and purposes, abandoned. Many of those that aren't completely abandoned (i.e. copyright holding entity still exists out there somewhere) are almost completely unavailable in the marketplace, and the copies that exist haven't benefited the copyright holder since the first sale anyway.

      There are, of course, games that MAME supports that are still protected by the copyright holders. For these, if you really care, go pick up the ROMs from somewhere... or don't. Chances are if you're not distributing them, nobody will care about this either.

      Use common sense; if it's going to cost you 10x more than the original cost of the game to buy it legally then pirate your little heart out.

  17. Easy by springbox · · Score: 1

    1.) Buy the original arcade board 2.) Dump ROMs Of course, you could use your cabinet to play the original games instead of emulating them.

    1. Re:Easy by DocHoncho · · Score: 1

      or 3) Download the damned ROMs and quit bellyaching about whether some multi-billion dollar company lost $600 in sales because a few hundred nerds downloaded a ROM of a game they threw up on some Virtual Console store just on the off chance that they could pull in a little bit more revenue. You are not going to get sued over shit like this. Never.

      Now, set up your own Virtual Console store with ROMs you downloaded and rake in a bunch of money? Yeah, now you better worry.

      --
      Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
  18. Not happening... by AngryDeuce · · Score: 2

    The only way you're going to get any games is piracy. Even if the original IP holder is still around (which many of them aren't), there isn't enough interest for them to offer a commercial product. They're not gonna be satisfied servicing the desires of a figurative handful of DIY'ers making MAME cabinets, the only way to see these in commercial release is through emulation on a console so they can ensure they get their $10 or whatever out of it. Frankly, the MAME emulation scene just isn't popular enough to ever really see even that come to pass, except for those select few titles like Centipede or Breakout that have stayed relevant in the popular consciousness.

    You have to move up to the 8-bit home consoles like the NES and Sega Master System, and beyond, if you're looking for actual legal re-releases, and you will NEVER see that happen in ROM form. If you want a legal way to play old arcade games, go buy some old arcade games. Otherwise, I wouldn't feel too bad about piracy when it comes to this stuff. They have no legal alternative.

  19. You must own it. by inkrypted · · Score: 1

    You can download the roms from any source as long as you own the games so I suggest you buy the arcade PCB's of any rom that you download. http://www.jammaboards.com/store/arcade-game-boards-and-pcbs/cat_21.html http://www.quarterarcade.com/Browse.aspx?c=All.Parts.Boards Those are only a couple of the places that you can buy the arcade boards.

    --
    Chris Sheppard
    1. Re:You must own it. by darkshadow88 · · Score: 1

      This is not true (in the US). The only copies you can have are ones you make yourself; downloaded copies are still illegal.

      Not like you're going to get caught.

    2. Re:You must own it. by inkrypted · · Score: 1

      Really? I did not know this but maybe the laws have changed I mean who can keep up anymore? I guess you have to buy the full arcade cabinet?

      --
      Chris Sheppard
  20. Is there a PHoF equivalent for arcade video games? by BitterKraut · · Score: 1

    To play vintage pinball machines, there is the Pinball Hall of Fame in Las Vegas (is it still there?). Is there a similar place to go for lovers of coin op arcade video game machines?

  21. Re:I am not a lawyer, but... by hedwards · · Score: 1

    It's ridiculous like that in many parts of the world. In the US, it's legal to back up your media, however you're not allowed to break the DRM in order to do it. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out how one can back up something that they're not allowed to make spare copies of.

  22. Welcome to Earth by davidbrit2 · · Score: 1

    I refuse to believe that this entire industry is built on piracy.

    Please remember to check your idealism at the door.

  23. Berlin by speedlaw · · Score: 1

    At the computer game museum in Berlin there is a great piece of computer art where these roms are randomly tossed together and the resulting mash up is funny and interesting gameplay.

  24. Piracy is not your only option by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    While there may be some gray area debate about 'fair use', but if you want to stick with the moral high ground, i don't see a problem with buying the game on a cart at your local store ( be it new or used ) then copying the data off to use in your emulator. ( im also assuming here you have an old console in the closet, just to be 100% legit )

    One step further, since you own the physical cart ( and license to use it ) i don't see a problem with downloading it. It's only 'piracy' if you don't own a license.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Piracy is not your only option by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but I think he's talking about arcade ROMs, not home console games. If he just wanted to play an old video game there are still plenty of used consoles available on eBay, etc.

      Original arcade ROMs, on the other hand, can be *really* hard to find, and legally licensed ROM images aren't much easier (which was what his post meant).

    2. Re:Piracy is not your only option by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      I still see arcade machines out there for sale, much cheaper if they are broke ( even better for this use-case ).

      Sure, extracting that code is really complex, but if you have the box in the basement ( even if its dead since i don't think your license gets revoked when a machine breaks ), i don't see a problem with downloading it.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    3. Re:Piracy is not your only option by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      I think the issue is legally vs. morally/ethically.

      Legally, well - it's almost never legal to download someone else's version of something you physically own. The "backup" exemption to copyright law only applies to a copy *you* make of the actual media that you own - the law is pretty crystal clear on this. An exception to this, of course, would be if you bought a license to do it (some software licenses specifically allow it).

      Ethically - well, of course, it's not as clear because unlike the law morality and ethics are not codified :) Personally I'd have no problem ethically with acquiring a backup online (or a copy to, for example, burn a new ROM to fix a broken arcade PCB that you own - that's the whole idea of the backup exemption in the first place).

      Basically, 99.9% of the emulator/MAME industry is technically illegal, but unlike downloading a bunch of music or movies you have never owned, it's a lot harder to argue that it's unethical...

  25. OP's post is proof... by blahplusplus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... that copyright laws are fucked up and piracy is the necessary response. The fact that he's trying to submit and "be moral" to a bankrupt system of laws is the first problem. There is no ethical quandary here. Software licensing for unlimited time due to copyright has has always been a scam it prevents old software from being modified/studied/updated as well as preserving older applications. Companies would like to just sit on/throw away or control works for eternity.

    The fact is you already live in a tyranny when you need "permission" to do things with things you already own or that should have legitimately become public domain after all these years. I'm not a believer in eternal rights for corporations and 'business people' that's our fundamental problem of this age - everyones sucking corporate capitalist dick and needs to get their heads read.

    Did we not learn anything from DRM and stallman's prescient "Right to read"?

    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

    The next time you are thinking of "doing the right thing" by submitting to laws made by lobbyists and corporations and their supporters just remember this video about the secret (at the time) trillion dollar give-aways by the fed reserve to the banks and other corporations who had huge investments:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJqM2tFOxLQ

    These people don't give a shit about anyone but themselves they are greedy bastards.

    1. Re:OP's post is proof... by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      You can dump your own ROMs :P

      Besides, redistribution and reproduction of copyrighted material isn't new. Nor is it tyranny. If you want tyranny move to an African or Middle Eastern country going through massive upheaval.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    2. Re:OP's post is proof... by blahplusplus · · Score: 1

      Are you a moron or something? The fact that the public domain has been downright destroyed by ignorant people like yourself is tragic.

      Tell me do you really want to live in a world where fan remakes, spinoffs, and updating game-code and assets are not possible? And that's just a tip of a giant iceberg due to games being an area I know a lot about. I don't think you understand the BS that is copyright because the stupidity hasn't effected you yet.

      http://www.opcoder.com/projects/chrono/

    3. Re:OP's post is proof... by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      Yes. Copyright is entirely too long but tyranny? Try living in a real tyrannical system before using hyperbole.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    4. Re:OP's post is proof... by blahplusplus · · Score: 1

      "Try living in a real tyrannical system before using hyperbole."

      You live in a world where there is billionaires and homeless people _in the same damn country_ and the rich attack and demonize the poor. The next time you think that the rich and corporations aren't tyrannical when they can get trillions of dollars in secret (at the time) bailouts while people trying to improve the meager $1000 a month assistance for the disabled who have been fighting to increase it to a livable wage for 40 years I think you need to get your head read sir. Copyright is just one of a long list of abuses capitalists have been engaging in over human history. There are tonnes of others we can list that are still going on today with endless military pork and laws written by lobbyists.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJqM2tFOxLQ

      The next time you think about polishing the knobs of capitalists just remember the following video where whole sections of the upper class get just what they want at the time saying "we can't afford to protect the weak". I think you are historically naive and illiterate person. There is tonnes of injustice and tyrannical things going on around you.

      US torturing people
      http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/issues/torture/us-torture/

      Every social gain in the past century has required conflict and bloodshed against moneyed interests. Just because the tyrannical aspects of capitalism don't effect you personally doesn't mean they don't exist. In fact many aspects are hidden/downplayed by propaganda and exported to other countries. The fact that you don't can't see the negative things all around you is proof you're rather ignorant.

      http://dailybail.com/home/there-are-no-words-to-describe-the-following-part-ii.html

    5. Re:OP's post is proof... by wildstoo · · Score: 1

      tyranny[tir-uh-nee]
      noun, plural -nies.
      1. arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.
      2. the government or rule of a tyrant or absolute ruler.
      3. a state ruled by a tyrant or absolute ruler.
      4. oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler.
      5. undue severity or harshness.

      Believe it or not, there is no clearly-defined scope as to when something is tyrranical or not. As someone who feels that copyright protection is unduly severe this would easily fit into the category, without being hyperbole.

      In this case, not only is it unduly severe, but it benefits the few at the expense of the many.

      Try looking up the definitions of words before using them in your argument.

  26. Pretty much by definition by suomynonAyletamitlU · · Score: 2

    The various media industries, when they're being selfish, say "Piracy" to mean "You made a copy when we asked you not to." Generally, the courts force this to only be a crime if you then share it with others. The existence of ROMs at all, even ones you dump yourself, are nevertheless piracy in that definition.

    Now look at the logistics of it. At this point, they're not manufacturing these products anymore. Unless they remade games for a new device, there is no product you can buy from them anymore--you can only buy secondhand games and secondhand systems. You say you don't want to pirate, which for games that are currently being sold is marvelous. But when they aren't selling products to you, they aren't losing money if you pirate instead of buying secondhand. Understand, if they ever decided to release ROMs, they would release them along with first-party, copy-protected emulators, and that's an investment of time, manpower, and money in and of itself. (It does happen; the PSP for example emulates PlayStation games, which you can get from their store, if you can stomach going there after the security breach nonsense.)

    If you want to support game developers or the industry, buy new products, whether it's games or licensed T-shirts. There's precious little to be found in emulation that could possibly help their bottom line.

    1. Re:Pretty much by definition by realityimpaired · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you want to support game developers or the industry, buy new products, whether it's games or licensed T-shirts. There's precious little to be found in emulation that could possibly help their bottom line.

      I presume you've never owned a Nintendo Wii then?

      In response to the originally asked question, the only way to have a legal ROM without buying it directly from the publisher (which isn't going to happen) is to make your own ROM. Get something like this: http://hackaday.com/2009/06/19/usb-reader-for-snes-game-carts/ and make your own. And don't distribute them.

    2. Re:Pretty much by definition by Fallingcow · · Score: 2

      That makes you legal at the price of some money and a good deal of inconvenience, none of which helps the original creators or anyone making games now.

      Unlike recent games, where the used market at least supports the higher new-game price, buying a cart of Super Mario Bros. and dumping it is just a silly ritual some people do to make their activities technically legal (the best kind of legal, I admit) and let them lord their imagined moral superiority over other people online.

      The MAME folks seem to be especially bad about this. "I bought a broken, bare board for $5 on Ebay and dumped the ROM with uncommon, narrowly-purposed hardware, so now I can sneer at all those dirty pirates on Internet message boards while I play Dig-Dug in another window. Man, I'm so much better than those freeloading assholes!"

      Just pirate the damn things. If you feel like someone deserves compensation for that, sending money to the individuals behind the games or buying newer products from the companies that published them would either one be more productive all-around, plus more morally praiseworthy, than buying 20-year-old carts and some obscure Chinese ROM-dumping hardware and pretending that does anything but make your activities more legal than regular-ol' pirates.

      Note that I'm not saying pirating games that old is immoral, just that buying old-ass carts and dumping them isn't somehow significantly more moral than whatever moral weight one places on piracy.

    3. Re:Pretty much by definition by gknoy · · Score: 1

      buying a cart of Super Mario Bros. and dumping it is just a silly ritual some people do to make their activities technically legal (the best kind of legal, I admit) and let them lord their imagined moral superiority over other people online.

      I think it's safe to say that buying a used cartridge, and then ripping it for personal use, is not merely "imagined" moral superiority, but actual moral superiority. If you don't actually own the cartridge, the moral thing to do is to buy one. (Of course, if it's one you own and can't rip personally, I don't see a whole lot wrong with using bits someone else copied, so perhaps I'm being hypocritical.)

    4. Re:Pretty much by definition by Hungry_Myst · · Score: 1

      I don't think the copyright holders will be any better off if you buy the cart at a flea-market versus downloading the ROM.

    5. Re:Pretty much by definition by rpresser · · Score: 1

      Now I'm not sure what I want to do if I want to stay moral (legality aside).

      Read books instead of playing games.

  27. Virtual Console by Yvan256 · · Score: 2

    AFAIK the easiest way to be legal about the whole thing would be to get a Nintendo Wii, wire your own arcade controls from a GameCube controller and get games from their Virtual Console service. The selection is extremely small if you compare to just finding ROM files from some place, but at least there's 29 Neo-Geo games and 19 arcade games in the list.

    Oddly enough, there's the SEGA Master System and the Turbografx-16 versions of R-Type, but not the original arcade version.

    1. Re:Virtual Console by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      So the guy is supposed to cram four or five consoles in his arcade cabinet to be legit with the ROMs? And swap discs on an old PS1 on top of that?

  28. Infinite copyright? by screwdriver · · Score: 1

    The real pirates here are the content producers and lobbyists who seem to think that copyright should be valid 20+ years after the game was created. I do not feel the least bit guilty for pirating a ROM for a game system that doesn't even exist anymore.

  29. Innocent until proven guilty by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

    Innocent until proven guilty? That's a nice thought. It's fantasy, but a nice thought.

    --
    I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
  30. Masterbation by spire3661 · · Score: 2

    If you have an ethical dillemma contact the rom copyright holders. If they cant be reached dont add the game or do, according to your conscience.


    The TL:DR here is: The law is murky, there is no true authority to buy the ROMS, any money you pay will almost certainly not reach anyone truly relevant ot the game or anyone that is empowered to license the game.

    --
    Good-bye
    1. Re:Masterbation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your TL:DR is longer than the rest of your post...

  31. No by HalAtWork · · Score: 1

    at the same time you want to use this content in an un-authorized/un-approved way.

    Actually, it seems that the poster wants it to be approved and just wants the appropriate price tag attached. People are going to consume the media in this way, it's up to the companies to step up and accept money for it, otherwise they'll be losing out. That's the reality of it.

  32. Everyone has their own "point of copyright" by Mathinker · · Score: 1

    > The whole point of copyright is to preserve the right to distribute for the owners

    Unless you somehow believe that you have the super-human ability to know the motivations of many different governments who have passed various forms of copyright, I think that claiming that you understand the "point" of copyright is a bit over-the-top. The reality is that everyone has their own idea what copyright is and/or should be.

    My personal idea is that the goal of copyright is/should be about remuneration, not control. Judging from the moderation on my comment the last time I talked about it, a lot of people disagree.

    BTW, it seems to me that the existence of EULAs show that at least some lawyers believe that copyright isn't just about distribution.

    1. Re:Everyone has their own "point of copyright" by The+Dawn+Of+Time · · Score: 1

      This is Slashdot. Copyright is immoral because it abridges the right to free entertainment. Get with the program.

    2. Re:Everyone has their own "point of copyright" by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      My personal idea is that the goal of copyright is/should be about remuneration, not control.

      I tend to agree that it should be about remuneration (although I am not solidly in that camp for various reasons). However, it is not just about remuneration, but, also, about control.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    3. Re:Everyone has their own "point of copyright" by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 1

      The reason people disagree (mods excluded for the moment) is that Copyright is not a a property right. It is trying to become one these days, but it's only about control over something "for a limited time." Copyright doesn't guarantee revenue, and it never should. The founders realized the lack of a public domain was crushing Europe and miring it in legal entanglements that the budding United States wanted to avoid. But like anything else in the world, the US has become Europe.. and places like China and so forth are the "new frontier" where copyright is treated as a truly limited control for the creator only.

      Just because lawyers try to enforce a nonexistent ideal in an EULA doesn't make it legally so. There are lots of unenforceable "wishes" in EULAs. The Economist once had an article describing why copyright was never meant to be a property right... (google, I'm lazy this afternoon. heh.)

      --
      It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
    4. Re:Everyone has their own "point of copyright" by wmelnick · · Score: 1

      Actually the objective point of copyright was to balance the rights of the author (copyright holder) to enrich himself from his creation against the rights of the public to have every work in the Public Domain. Unfortunately this balance has tipped far in the direction of the copyright holder at the expense of the public. The public need to be educated that having works in the Public Domain is their right and is a good thing.

    5. Re:Everyone has their own "point of copyright" by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "BTW, it seems to me that the existence of EULAs show that at least some lawyers believe that copyright isn't just about distribution."

      EULAs actually prove that lawyers don't think copyright is about more than distribution, otherwise they wouldn't be making you sign contracts (eula's) which give them controls copyright doesn't.

    6. Re:Everyone has their own "point of copyright" by Mathinker · · Score: 1

      It took me a while to figure out what was wrong with your reasoning, I was finding your idea quite interesting.

      However you state "they wouldn't be making you", while missing the whole point of my comment: they would have no power to "make you" accept the terms of their EULA if they didn't think that "using software" was a protected use under current copyright law. I can't see how typical usage of software causes distribution, which is what the post I replied to claimed was "the whole point of copyright".

    7. Re:Everyone has their own "point of copyright" by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "they would have no power to "make you" accept the terms of their EULA if they didn't think that "using software" was a protected use under current copyright law"

      Who said they think copyright law gives them the power to "make you" accept the EULA. They use technical measures to force you to agree before the software will work and if that fails they will claim that their distribution of the copy was dependent on agreement of the EULA. In other words, agreement of the EULA is part of the price of the copy and if you haven't paid for the software you have no fair use rights to it.

      Actually they already have made this very argument and sometimes it is ruled that because EULAs are an industry standard practice it is reasonable to expect a consumer to know that agreeing to one is par for the course (bs imho) and sometimes that there at least must be an indication on the packaging that you will have to agree to a EULA if you buy the product (still bs, how can you agree to terms before knowing them)?

  33. Re:I am not a lawyer, but... by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

    It's ridiculous like that in many parts of the world. In the US, it's legal to back up your media, however you're not allowed to break the DRM in order to do it. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out how one can back up something that they're not allowed to make spare copies of.

    Well, in short... there is no DRM on certain types of media. In fact, the only portable media that you own which has DRM on it is probably on DVD or BD... unless you buy mp3's from iTunes or similar service. If you buy a CD, however, there's no copy protection on it at all, because such copy protection doesn't exist in the CDDA standard, and would break the ability to play the CD on some players.

    Circumventing the copy protection on a DVD or BluRay is a different ballgame. There's copy protection built right into the standard for both media types. In that respect, the US is insane... in the country where I live, it's perfectly legal to back up that media to another format, as long as you're not distributing it. Copyright here doesn't really exist in the sense it does elsewhere... distribution right does, however. You can copy something for personal use, but you can't distribute it for others to use. Due to some quirks in the way the law is written, you can legally download a copy from somebody else... you're not breaking the law, but he is by distributing it to you.

  34. Follow the money by tepples · · Score: 1

    Unless you somehow believe that you have the super-human ability to know the motivations of many different governments who have passed various forms of copyright

    These motivations can be discerned in part from the major contributors to the various legislators' reelection campaign organizations.

  35. How do I dumped cartridge? by tepples · · Score: 3, Interesting

    i don't see a problem with buying the game on a cart at your local store ( be it new or used ) then copying the data off to use in your emulator.

    This would appear to be legal under 17 USC 117(a)(1). But good luck finding the copier tools to extract the data from the cartridges. A Nintendo DS or DS Lite with a flash card can dump Game Boy Advance cartridges, but that's about it. For Sega Genesis and Super NES, there was the Retrode, but that's sold out. For NES, there's the Kazzo, but that's hand-assembled in extremely low volumes and apparently not intended for sale to the casual gamer.

  36. Re:Buy legal copies of the games, rip them yoursel by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

    Of course, what you're talking about, unfortunately, is purchasing dozens of huge, expensive arcade cabinets for the purpose of copying their data into a single arcade cabinet. At which point you might as well keep the original, authentic cabinets.

    --
    Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
  37. Legal defense costs money by tepples · · Score: 1

    Should you get sued, do you have the money to hire representation to prevent there from being "a court decision stating otherwise"? The golden rule in this system of things continues to be "he who has the gold makes the rules."

  38. Flat-pack arcade cabinets by tepples · · Score: 1

    or less shady ones selling just JAMMA cabinets.

    Can you recommend a reputable maker of JAMMA cabinet kits for the IKEA/Sauder flat pack crowd?

  39. Not quite entirely built on piracy by russotto · · Score: 2

    There are two types of people doing emulation. The Ebeneezer T. Scrooge types who think anyone who doesn't have their very own collection of vintage arcade games to reverse engineer doesn't deserve to play them. And the eyepatch-and-jolly-roger set. Personally I find the pirates far less offensive.

    1. Re:Not quite entirely built on piracy by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      This entire area is ABANDONWARE. It's an area of the market that was originally completely neglected by the relevant "owners" before enthusiasts decided to put a lot of work into breathing new life into these works. They should all rightfully be in the public domain by now. It's only due to very recent changes to copyright law that all of these ROMs aren't just free for the taking. Beyond the abandonment of these works is the fact that it's very awkward to use them in their original context. Technology has improved in the interim. These works are still interesting culturally and historically relevant. It's just impractical to use them in their original form.

      This is simply an ignored patch of land that we should all have squatters rights to already.

      The actual authors have no interest in preservation of these works or making them available for purchase. They would likely all be lost if not for "evil pirates".

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    2. Re:Not quite entirely built on piracy by DocHoncho · · Score: 1

      This, this and more this. You are never going to get sued for downloading a "contraband" ROM of DigDug or any other vintage arcade game. Nintendo IP may be a different matter, but it tends to be one of those "the cost doesn't justify the action" kind of things. "Oh no, Jimmy Blargh in Des Moines downloaded Super Mario Bros 2. Whatever shall we do? SEND OUT THE LAWYERS!" ... $20,000 later ... "Well at least we showed him." Hah.

      --
      Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
  40. Right to clone by tepples · · Score: 1

    It's also supposed to be balanced by the idea/expression divide, which can be thought of as implying a "right to clone". Copyright doesn't prevent you from making your own game in the same genre. See, for example, Lotus v. Borland (uncopyrightability of computer program menus) and Capcom v. Data East (uncopyrightability of character archetypes, even in a video game with mostly the same rules).

  41. Not all games by tepples · · Score: 1

    Let me know when Earthbound will become available in the Super NES aisle of Virtual Console in the North American market.

    1. Re:Not all games by Windwraith · · Score: 1

      What can I say other than...good point.

      I also realise how stupidly easy it would be to bring Earthbound to Europe as well, but we know how this crap works.

  42. Re:You don't by tepples · · Score: 1

    If they sell you a ROM and it doesn't work with your emulator, then what?

    That's why the publisher certifies the game on a specific emulator and sells them as a bundle (which incidentally means the emulator won't be MAME).

  43. The entire rom industry is built on piracy by Cito · · Score: 2
    no need to be "holier than thou" when it comes to it, just download it, all roms are available on piratebay/kat.ph/demonoid.me pick your poison.

    There are no legit rom sellers as the companies folded years ago, too hard to track down each split up company to aquire any legal licensing or whatnot. So the entire emulator/rom industry other than small amount of free ones are all done via pirating.

    We have 3 arcade machines in our office that use pirated roms and takes quarters, so it has that nice retro feel, plus acts as a piggy bank of sorts, There was no way to do it legally, so we pirated the roms and each machine has 25 roms on it.

    just suck it up and download them like everyone else in the world does and stop trying to act like it's some holier than thou or morally right.

  44. Re:I am not a lawyer, but... by TheDormouse · · Score: 1

    Interesting. In this case, could the original CD not be considered the backup (since you probably aren't using it anymore) and the ripped mp3 now be the "primary" format?

  45. arcade ROM chips here by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    you can purchase legit arcade ROM boards or chips at these sites:
    have to sell body parts to afford
    decent prices
    on ebay <-- sometimes super deals! however, if super cheap and it's a chinese seller, it's pirated. (sad but true)

    after purchasing them, you will either need to dump the chips or download them predumped from the net. it's not piracy if you own the chips. it's going to cost you a boat load of money, so you have been warned.

    if you buy just the ROM (not on chips) from someone then it's guaranteed pirated.

    but seriously, LRN2GOOGLE!

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:arcade ROM chips here by tgd · · Score: 1

      it's not piracy if you own the chips.

      In most cases with arcade ROMs, that is incorrect. The software on the ROMS was licensed with the hardware, which was licensed with the enclosure. In most cases, *any* modification (like the original add-on Ms Pacman games, as an example), including moving the ROMS or even the entire boards to new machines, was violation of the license agreements.

      For the most part, the only way to legally run those ROMS is in the original cabinet they came in, with the original unmodified boards.

    2. Re:arcade ROM chips here by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      This is yet another instance of industry shill bullshit.

      A copy of a work is it's own thing. You have a right to use it under copyright law. There is no implied license associated with it.

      The First Sale doctrine still applies as does standard copyright law.

      This nonsense was adjudicated a VERY long time ago with books.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    3. Re:arcade ROM chips here by tgd · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, because I agree with your sentiment, your opinion of the law, and the law, are two vastly different things.

      The courts have repeatedly held up the difference between the licensing of IP and the sale of physical goods.

      And, the fact is, thats how arcade cabinets and the hardware/software in them have always been sold/licensed.

  46. Personal Backup by Chardansearavitriol · · Score: 1

    is what we call it, not piracy. If you own the game, you can own the ROM. At least thats what the rom sites i certainly have never visited or downloaded in mass quantities tell me. At least, I assume thats what they tell me. I wouldnt know since ive never gone to those sites. Infact ive never even heard of this "rom" thing. You have to tell me if youre a cop you know! I CANT BE COURT MARTIALED TWICE.

    1. Re:Personal Backup by Shados · · Score: 1

      I would assume in those scenarios, if you own the game, you're not the pirate. You're allowed to have the backup. The people distributing the backups however.....

    2. Re:Personal Backup by mark-t · · Score: 1

      To play devil's advocate for a moment...

      While you are right that you can own the rom if you own the game, downloading it from a pirate site in the first place is still entirely legally questionable... even at best, by downloading it, you are directly assisting another person in breaking the law, whether or not it is entirely their own idea, since even fair dealing or fair use rights to make copies for one's own personal use does not extend to the people who were sharing it making copies for public distribution or broadcast (which is exactly what one does if they share something online with other people). Deliberately assisting another person in committing a crime is, generally speaking, considered a crime as well.

      Just sayin'....

  47. Naïve by jevring · · Score: 1

    "I refuse to believe that this entire industry is built on piracy" Then you, sir, are naïve.

    --
    Move sig!
  48. FAIL. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    license agreements != piracy
    license agreements != law
    license agreements != copyright infringement
    buying != agreeing to licensing agreement.

    there is no license agreement required to purchase the chips.
    you are legally allowed to use the software on them on another medium as covered by fair use.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:FAIL. by tgd · · Score: 2

      As I said in the other reply, your opinion of how the law should work, and how the law works, have absolutely no relationship to each other.

      This article is about someone who wants to (for whatever reason) follow the law. The *fact* of the law is that very few ROMs would be legal to copy and re-use in another system. If you're claiming the original poster should follow your opinion on the law, rather than the law, its a hell of a lot less effort to just grab the ROM images from Usenet. Because the *fact* of law is that those images are just as much in violation of the license agreements *and* copyright as ROMs he/she would format-shift.

      Until the *government* declares that the specific re-use of the specific ROMs is legal as covered by fair use (which has happened with some types of media in limited cases), the *fact* is that it is *not* legal.

      The basic point is simple -- as most of the other posters who actually understand this have said. The emulator industry *is* built in piracy because the fact is, the copying of the ROMs to the emulator violates the license the original purchaser of the machine agreed to -- and the resale of the machine (legal or not) does not break the chain of license to the new owner. So, the original poster should suck it up and do what everyone else does -- either refurbish the original machine, or just download the ROMs and not care. If he's not re-selling anything, no one will know but him, and as others have said, no one is getting hurt because there is no other way to get the ROMs legally.

      I don't get the need to pretend to be following the law, instead of just being honest and admitting you're not.

    2. Re:FAIL. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      the *fact* of law is that those images are just as much in violation of the license agreements *and* copyright as ROMs he/she would format-shift.

      please cite why this is not covered under fair use. a previously stated, you do not have to agree to any license agreement to purchase the ROMs.

      Until the *government* declares that the specific re-use of the specific ROMs is legal as covered by fair use (which has happened with some types of media in limited cases), the *fact* is that it is *not* legal.

      please read what fair use is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_under_United_States_law
      there is no need for explicit mention of ROMs as you are citing copyright. if it's under copyright then it gets fair use regardless of content type or medium.

      I don't get the need to pretend to be following the law, instead of just being honest and admitting you're not.

      troll much?

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  49. PCBs by Torodung · · Score: 1

    You can buy original printed circuit boards, no cabinets necessary. Then you identify the particular set on them. Then you can download that particular ROM set, or dump them yourself. And only for yourself.

    And that's a gray area. Nobody in the industry has bothered to bring suit against such a person because they're afraid they might lose, and therefore set a precedent. You have an electronic copy of what's on a PCB you lawfully own, and nobody's likely to do anything about it.

    In such a situation, you may be "called" a pirate for such actions, but there is no final determination, and you are unlikely to go to court.

    Welcome to the nation of laws. We're more like a nation of legal avoidance.

  50. Just download them by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

    It won't kill you to download the roms you want. I am annoyed though that the only place to get MAME roms seem to be torrents. I wish something as awesome as mame.dk was still around

  51. Officially released on CD by El_Oscuro · · Score: 2

    Both Williams and Atari released PC collections with emulators and the ROM's of the original games. I am not sure they can be extracted for MAME use, nor if it is legal, but it does provide another option. Many other old games have been released in some fashion with the ROM's included.

    --
    "Be grateful for what you have. You may never know when you may lose it."
    1. Re:Officially released on CD by DocHoncho · · Score: 1

      And I'm willing to bet that they only did that (i.e., acquired the ROMs from the scene and monetized it) because they knew that they would never stop people from downloading these games and wanted to at least try to capitalize on the misplaced morality of hand-wringers who can't bring themselves to just download the goddamned things. I can (but probably shouldn't) guarantee that the folks who made these old games are not going to receive any portion of the revenue made from selling these old games. Do you really think that the team who made DigDug is still getting proceeds from the sales of that game? Not bloody likely. It's padding the coffers of Namco, who've probably had enough turnover so that no one who was involved in the development of DigDug, or even the management, are any longer associated with the company. Hell, they broke even on the game years and years ago, any new revenue from the game is pure profit.

      --
      Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
  52. I paid for the games already by RadiusQ · · Score: 2

    Between the ages of 5 and 14, 100% of my disposable income was spent playing these ROMs when housed in their original machines. I'd bet a testicle that not a single developer of any of the ROMs I have downloaded would begrudge my nostalgic trip, and I think that's exactly what it's about to most people. Just a little bit of nostalgia. I don't think there's much of a moral issue here. The only argument I can see for the games industry not being keen of having these old ROMs available for free, is that whilst people are spending hours and hours playing old games via MAME, they may not necessarily be going out and buying new games. I choose to ignore that argument though as I don't really play games much anymore. I don't really play old games any more either. The fact of the matter is when I boot these old ROMs I no longer see the magic. It's gone. Mostly. Robotron is still friggin' awesome though!

    1. Re:I paid for the games already by DocHoncho · · Score: 1

      My kingdom for mod points.

      --
      Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
  53. Better idea if you cant grow a pair and pirate rom by lunas · · Score: 1

    Instead of building a cabinet with a computer you are going to have to build one with a wii, ps3 or 360 in it with enough ventilation perhaps all 3 and if you really want to go the full mile and rip them out of their cases you can mount the optical drives so you can still use them with out opening the side of the cabinet... Then you can play what ever roms Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft port over. It would not be too hard to make a switch to allow you to use the arcade pad on all 3 consoles...

  54. Depends by GoochOwnsYou · · Score: 1

    In Australia, you can legally download for free roms of games you already own. Im not 100% sure on other parts of the world.

    --
    This sig has been distributed under the Creative Commons license.
  55. Re:IT'S NOT PIRACY!!! by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

    Lulwut? No, the law says that until the heat death of the universe (pretty much the term of copyright today) it is illegal to get the ROMs. And while the Virtual Console service did make it easier to get out of print games there are still a huge list that Nintendo either hasn't bothered to release on it, at least over here in the states (such as Japanese-only games like Fire Emblem), or games that will never be released due to licensing issues.

    The virtual console was a nice idea but broken in practice. Not to mention the games aren't transferable, for example, even though I bought the Super Mario Bros. ROM from the VC, I still can't play it on my computer or phone and who even knows if the titles I paid $5 for will even work on the Wii U or if I'd have to pay an extra $5.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  56. I worked on a legal emulation project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    For a large company, obviously. I wasn't on the legal team, but I heard some of the better stories about acquiring ROMs.

    Firstly, they're all owned by someone. Doesn't matter what happened to the original company, or the original developers, somebody, somewhere, owns the rights. The laws have all been carefully crafted to make sure nothing ever expires. There's no such thing as abandonware, just companies that don't advertise what they own.
    Some of the big arcade machine comapnies are still around, and have libraries of most or all of their ROMs. For a commercial project like ours, our lawyers called theirs, worked out a price, and we got official copies. They won't talk to you, you're too small to be worth their time.
    Some of the other companies were bought up by other companies that didn't keep track of their old products, our lawyers called theirs, and got an agreement that we could buy boards where ever we could (mostly eBay) and rip those for our project. Again, you can't afford the legal fees involved in setting up a contract like that. And do note that we had to have a working copy of the original hardware for each ROM we used.
    Then you get the interesting cases. A company got liquidated, all their IP was bought by someone who wanted some of their hardware trade secrets, and didn't care about the games. A few company splits, takeovers, etc. later, and we were trying to convince a stock brokerage firm that they really did own a couple of video games. Or the cases where the graphics were only licensed for use in that game by the original developers. First we had to buy the rights from the owners of the IP that once belonged to the original devs, then we had to relicense the rights to use the graphics. In one case, a key part of the split rights turned out to be owned by someone who's since been outspoken about the evils of video games. They got rather hostile when they found out they owned one, and we wanted to licence it.

    So, basically, every post above this that tells you there's a legal way to download ROMs is wrong. In some countries you can buy a board, rip the ROMs, and use those personally. That's the best you're going to get as an individual. If you were a corporation, you could negotiate a license with other corporations, but somehow we've created a world where a legal fiction has more rights than the people who created it.

  57. one ton of currency by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    The British penny (used since we're talking about the BBC here) weighs 3.56 grams.

    2000 pounds is 907,184.74 grams

    907,184.74 / 3.56 = 254,827.174 (2548 pounds sterling and 27 pence)
    Banknotes tend to weigh about a gram, so that's 45,359,200 pounds sterling in fifty-pound notes

    $3628.73 in US one cent coins or $90,718,400 in US $100 bills

    I'd guess that the BBC would actually pay something inbetween those two.

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  58. Re:Is there a PHoF equivalent for arcade video gam by TechwoIf · · Score: 1

    Yes it is still there, and have sense moved to a better place sense the last time I was there. They got a few prototype games in there. http://www.pinballmuseum.org/

  59. Re:I am not a lawyer, but... by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

    It's ridiculous like that in many parts of the world. In the US, it's legal to back up your media, however you're not allowed to break the DRM in order to do it. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out how one can back up something that they're not allowed to make spare copies of.

    That is an easy one to answer.

    What you do is to simply ignore such a fucked up retarded law and make your backup anyway. As long as you aren't then handing out copies of the product, or at least not doing so in a way that attracts any attention, who is really going to give a rat's ass?

    --
    This space unintentionally left blank.
  60. The reasons the companies dont sell ROMs by jonwil · · Score: 1

    1.Sometimes they dont want to sell the roms because they are selling sequels on modern platforms (why would you buy Street Fighter on 360 or PS3 or iPhone or whatever when you could buy the original arcade ROMs for a cheaper price and play them with MAME)
    2.Selling the ROMs means they are endorsing the idea that emulators written without the companies permission are illegal
    3.Lack of control over what ROMs are sold and what emulators are used to play those ROMs (in some cases the manufacturer may be able to provide a set of ROMs from an archive but what about if those dont match the ROMs the emulator wants)
    4.Pushing people to play on the platform of their choice (i.e. Nintendo pushing people to buy a Wii or DS if they want to play the old Nintendo titles)
    5.licensing and rights issues such as content licensed from a 3rd party (e.g. Atari Star Wars licensing from Lucas), content produced by someone else (e.g. graphics developed by company A, game developed by company B), issues with music issues with home computer vs arcade vs console rights (Tetris being one well known example) and other issues where the company owning the copyright on the arcade ROMs may not own all the rights they need to distribute those ROMs for home use. A release of the ROMs may also infringe on rights held by someone else to produce a remake or sequel.
    7.Also they may not want to release ROMs for old games simply because if people are playing those, they arent playing unrelated newer (and more profitable) titles from the same company.

    I too would LOVE to see a site like StarRoms only better and with a bigger library.

  61. Buy the game by Dthief · · Score: 1

    then pirate the ROM

    --
    www.RacquetUp.org - Helping Detroit Youth
  62. Buy the original carts as insurance! by Dr+Black+Adder · · Score: 1

    My view is that if you buy the original, there's no crime in using a ROM. Having the cartridges may or may not do anything for the legality of your situation, but if it ever got to the courtroom ,and you had an entire back-catalogue of the originals for all of your 'infringements', I'm sure it would help a lot. Also the box art is mad!

  63. Maybe go the JAMMA route? by PhotoBoy · · Score: 1

    Personally I prefer to play on original hardware rather than emulation (it's a bit like the old CD vs vinyl debate!) That's not to say emulation isn't great in a lot of circumstances, but I tend to prefer the real hardware. Timing is one thing I often notice is inaccurate or erratic in emulated games, my favourite example being Samus' wall kick in Super Metroid, which I often use as a quick acid test of a SNES emulator.

    I've put together a collection of various JAMMA games that are favourites of mine and use a Supergun to play them. While it's a bit of a pain swapping delicate boards (the encased boards of the CPS1 Q-sound era onwards are a godsend), it's great to be able to play the original hardware. Obviously certain early non-JAMMA games need extra wiring to work, but it can be worth the effort if you're into this sort of hobby. :)

  64. A simple idea by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

    Try to find out the current owner of the rights of "Game X". If after some time looking for you can not find who owns it, then just download the ROM from anywhere.

    --
    Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
  65. That'll attract police attention by tepples · · Score: 1

    Outside of their offices and courts, a lawyer confronted with harsh, physical violence will cave in way faster than your average Joe will confronted with a lawsuit.

    No, that'll attract the physical violence of the government. And the only reason why the government is the government is because it has the monopoly on the legitimate use of lethal force.

  66. I used to fix arcade games, ask me. by kheldan · · Score: 1

    Back in the day when I repaired pinball machines and coin-op arcade games for a living (using that word loosely here!) if you had a game with one or more bad ROMs/EPROMs, you didn't go to the manufacturer for the part; you copied it from another of the same game. I used to have a HUGE library of ripped ROMs from arcade games (sorry, don't have them anymore!). Especially if it's an old game from a company that no longer exists, just bite the bullet and either download a copy from someone else, or get a physical set of boards for the game, a chip programmer, and read them yourself. Seriously: you're not selling them, or building clones of the old game to operate for profit, right? You just want to play the damned game. Unless it's Pac Man or any of it's variants, in which case Namco will have your balls if you get caught, nobody really cares all that much.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  67. If you buy used, you might as well pirate by euxneks · · Score: 1

    If you buy the game used or second hand, you might as well buy it pirated - the nobility of purchasing it is gone - none of that money is going to the original distributors. Unless you can purchase the game *directly* from the copyright holders you might as well pirate the game.

    --
    in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
  68. Find your nearest arcade repair shop by jasomenaso · · Score: 1

    Every largish city has somewhere that arcade machines get repaired. Where I live there (~350,000 population) there used to be a few but now there is just one dude that runs a repair/distribution company for arcade machines. He does a lot of private trade these days.

    If you go along to any repair shop, if it's anything like my local one, there will be a room with a thousands of mainboards for a variety of arcade machines.

    As time has passed a lot of games have gone in and out of favour. By removing their mainboards and replacing with a newer mainboard from a more popular game one could save money by keeping the original cabinet. A lot of mainboards were stored in back rooms, cupboards, or just piled up in the corner.

    If you feel so guilty that you couldn't build a MAME cabinet without legally owning the roms I would tell you to go and buy the mainboard. You will find they run at no more than $5 each - at least for the games made in the 1980's and early 1990. As you move into the late 1990's you will start coming across games that also require a hard drive for storing game assets (tilesets, audio and video samples etc). It might be a little harder to get all the physical assets to justify to your needs (I think Killer Instinct used a hard drive).

    Cheers,
    Jaso

    --
    Jaso