Slashdot Mirror
Nintendo To ROM Sites: Forget Cease-and-Desist, Now We're Suing (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Nintendo's attitude toward ROM releases -- either original games' files or fan-made edits -- has often erred on the side of litigiousness. But in most cases, the game producer has settled on cease-and-desist orders or DMCA claims to protect its IP. This week saw the company grow bolder with its legal action, as Nintendo of America filed a lawsuit (PDF) on Thursday seeking millions in damages over classic games' files being served via websites. The Arizona suit, as reported by TorrentFreak, alleges "brazen and mass-scale infringement of Nintendo's intellectual property rights" by the sites LoveROMs and LoveRetro. These sites combine ROM downloads and in-browser emulators to deliver one-stop gaming access, and the lawsuit includes screenshots and interface explanations to demonstrate exactly how the sites' users can gain access to "thousands of [Nintendo] video games, related copyrighted works, and images." The biggest amount of money Nintendo is seeking comes from "$150,000 for the infringement of each Nintendo copyrighted work and up to $2,000,000 for the infringement of each Nintendo trademark." The company has also requested full disclosure of the operators' "receipts and disbursements, profit and loss statements, advertising revenue, donations and cryptocurrency revenue, and other financial materials."
LoveROMs has since removed all Nintendo-affiliated links, including ROMs and emulators, and the site announced on its social media channels that "all Nintendo titles have been removed from our site." Meanwhile, LoveRetro.co now redirects visitors to a page that reads: "Loveretro has effectively been shut down until further notice."
LoveROMs has since removed all Nintendo-affiliated links, including ROMs and emulators, and the site announced on its social media channels that "all Nintendo titles have been removed from our site." Meanwhile, LoveRetro.co now redirects visitors to a page that reads: "Loveretro has effectively been shut down until further notice."
Cool. So show us where we can purchase those ROMs legitimately.
Thanks.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
1. Sue websites for hosting 30 year old games
2. Anger customers
3. ???
4. Profit!!!
Cool. So show us where we can purchase those ROMs legitimately.
Thanks.
Amazon has the Nintendo NES and SNES classic editions back in stock. That covers some of the ROMs. Beyond that, as annoying as it may be, they don't have to sell you anything, but still get to keep copyright control. So you can host ROMs or download ROMs, but risk legal trouble if you get caught. But you know all this already.
Except copying is not theft. The car analogy is stupid and worn out.... Especially for vintage works. You're saying if I buy a junk car and make it look like a Studebaker I now owe Studebaker the cost a new Studebaker?
"Oh so I can now just go grab any Studebaker I see? "
No, but you can build one for yourself that looks and behaves exactly as the original.
While I fully acknowledge and support an owner's copyrights, I also believe that in absence of clear, genuine use or capitalization upon a particular copyright, certain IP should enter the a "semi-public" domain wherein limited duration licensing to those copyrights may be sold on behalf of the holder.
Example: If Nintendo is still making money on "Pokemon" in general, good for them. However, if they don't find it financially viable to re-make the original GameBoy Pokemon games and thus choose not to make them available on modern platforms, people should be able to pay a fair value semi-public domain license to replicate or acquire those games for use on any platform. The license could be limited (1 year) and affordable ($2/year) with at least 50% of that licensing going to Nintendo with the remaining going to support this semi-public domain licensing system.
This would be better for everyone. Nintendo doesn't have to ramp up their lawyer pool to squeeze blood from stones (users and distributors of emulators and games) and those "stones" could pay their share in small amounts. Nintendo continues get to get paid and retain control while users get their games and don't get dragged to court.
The same could be done for books no longer in print (I have a couple I'd like to replace but cannot find anywhere) and movies that haven't made the transition to digital media. Hell, I'd happily pay a flat $0.50/DVD to be able to rip them and store them for my own convenient watching while being 100% certain that I can never be sued for having done so (instead of having to argue fair use in court).
I suspect that there is a very good reason why Nintendo has not re-released some vintage games. Most likely they sold off, or never had, the rights to the game. Because Nintendo has made so many of their vintage games available I won't criticize them for going after companies who are illegally profiting from their copyrighted work.
As far as most civilized nations around the globe go theft is usually defined as depriving someone of something, causing damages in the process. Copying is not depriving something of the exclusive rights to copy something as they've still got that right. Copying is infringing that exclusive right.
But he can't sell it (an exact copy would have the Studebaker monikers too) or give it away with intent to profit (by forcing someone to watch an ad (which he's been paid to show) before getting the keys for example.) Whoever owns the Studebaker IP can, but probably won't unless production turned into a few cars, sue. You can, buy an original Studebaker, make changes to it, and then resell it which is comparable to buying a chart, changing/editing the ROM, placing the ROM back into the original cart, and then resell the cart.
They are distributing copies of the ROM without packaging it with original carts, gaining profit from ad revenue. The action of sharing is illegal assuming the site owners also own the original carts that the ROMs were pulled from. If they pulled the ROMs from someone else, then that someone else also committed an actionable legal issue.
Nintendo is actually one of the better ones for popular games from their back catalog for modern consoles. This is a far cry different from a publisher that has gone out of business or who longer sells the old titles.
You use a strange definition for the word "theft", which is not like everybody else uses it.
"I don't think that word mean what he thinks it mean."
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Sure thing. All you need to do is go to a site like eBay or Amazon, purchase the cartridge/disc for the game you want (buying it used should be fine), and then rip it yourself using one of the numerous ripping devices that are legally available. Easy peasy.
When you get down to it, the process is more or less identical to ripping audio from a CD or a video from a DVD (in fact, I used to rip all of my PS1 games from disc, just like I would my CDs, and I actually intend to go back and do so for all of my disc-based games in the next few years here) and, for the most part, just as legal.
The most obvious way that you might run afoul of the law with the steps above is that some emulators require that you separately download a copy of the console's BIOS before they'll work, which is an act of copyright infringement. Thankfully, more and more emulators are moving away from that practice by doing the tough work of reverse engineering the original BIOS so that they no longer need a copy of it to work, and the standing precedent in the US is that they are perfectly legal. The other way you might run afoul of the law is that newer systems may have copy protection mechanisms in place. Just as you're allowed to format shift a blu-ray but you're not necessarily allowed to break the encryption on the blu-ray to do so, you may run into issues with games on newer consoles that have similar protections in place.
Alternatively, if you don't want to deal with ripping ROMs from your own, legally-purchased copies of the game, most of the popular games from old Nintendo systems (as well as others) are available for purchase on newer Nintendo systems. Were you actually interested in pursuing this legally (rather than simply asking a rhetorical question as a poor rationalization for your illegal behavior), you'd already know that the Wii and Wii U provide a rather extensive back catalog of old titles that are available for purchase (though I think the Wii is losing access to the store in a few months). Likewise, many old console games are available on Steam, GOG, or similar storefronts. And for older games that had a PC release, many are still playable thanks to WINE, ScummVM, or other pieces of software that allow you to simulate outdated hardware.
Honestly, it's easier than ever to go about this stuff legally. Unless you're talking about obscure games that have been lost to time, there's almost always a legal avenue open that (after a possible fixed cost for the some necessary hardware) only costs whatever the prevailing price is for the game.
And availability of legitimate copies is irrelevant to copyright infringement cases.
Nintendo is certainly within their legal rights to do this, but I don't get the point of it as a business strategy.
Is the idea that if people can't get the ROMs anywhere they'll just play new games on the newer consoles? Those are completely different market segments. I don't see how that idea would work at all.
Is the idea that they're losing NES/SNES classic sales because people are getting the ROMs instead? That's the same kind of argument the MPAA/RIAA uses that never seems to work out in the real world.
It just seems like they're spending more money on litigation than they'll ever get back in sales from this. Just because you have the legal right to do something doesn't mean it's smart to do it.
The original intent of copyright was to protect ownership for 28 years. That would put many NES games in public domain at this point. You'll have to wait until 2022 for the complete catalog, however.
It's a perfect time for being wasted.
A perfect time to watch the stars.
- Burden Brothers, "Beautiful Night"
Something being out of circulation does not give you the right to access it freely.
What if I do own the rom and I can't access the console anymore? Do I have a right to play the games I really like if I can play it on an emulator?
Is the rom media the license or is it the method of delivering the software?
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Nintendo tried to outlaw second hand market for nintendo games they even sued a company selling and buying used games
Mendacem Memorem Esse Oportet
Sure it is; copyright theft is the theft of the right (control) to copy.
True that, however that really needs to be balanced against time and the community built up around those works. If we look at Disney they claimed huge amount of European works as the basis for their stories then lobbied to keep extending their copyright control (for lifetime of artist + 120 years now IIRC). So who exactly has the right to perpetual copyright control over our culture?
There has to be a time when, as Spock once said, The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one, should I pay CBS a licence for saying that? They got paid for making a contribution to our culture, for creating something that grew, matured and then faded into memory. They made a lot of money. When do we get to finish paying the lease on memories?
If Nintendo aren't maintaining the works and the community is where is the harm of people getting joy out of playing them? Is Nintendo offering these games for sale anymore, have they offered the sites a means to create a licensing option for people who what to play them or did they just come to the party to spoil everyone's fun? Sure they offered a retro console recently but does that allow a method to access these works?
The bottom line here is when these companies start acting like a member of the community, instead of pretending they own it, is when our culture will be richer for all.
Let's hope that one day they see that.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Prior to modern copyright, which began in the early 18th century with the Copyright Act 1710 aka the Statute of Anne, a monopoly called the Stationers' Company owned rights comparable to copyright in the form of the exclusive right to operate a printing press.
We also shouldn't have a greed driven, corporate written copyright system where things are still under copryright 30 years after they're released, but here we are.
I'm all for strong IP protection. I work in a field where patents enable a lot of innovation, so believe me, I get that IP is important. But come on, there's no reason why something released over two decades ago should not be in the public domain. If they want to sue over torrents of something like Super Mario Odyssey, Breath of the Wild, or Pokémon UltraMoon, then sure, I'm all for taking down the sites who are hosting pirated copies of them and hitting them with lawsuits. But if we're talking about the original Metroid or Kirby, then I don't have much sympathy.
The companies that wrote the laws don't like the idea of works falling into the public domain because it hurts their ability to sit indefinitely on films, music, literature, and games and collect perpetual profit, but I saw screw 'em. Yes, they do legally have a case, but we shouldn't forget that it is only because of how messed up copyright laws are due to their clever investments in various nations' lawmakers.
And as one of the comments points out:
Checking description in the Steam store it says:
First off, you can't rip a NES cartridge with a DVD drive. Second, I already paid (well, my mom paid) $50 for Super Mario 3 in 1990, so I have the legal right to download a ROM. Fuck Nintendo if they think I'm paying for the game *again*, not to mention $300 for a Switch or Wii or whatever console they decide to lock it to (PC Master Race). It's pathetic that they're actively selling 30 year old games from stone-age consoles for non-trivial amounts of money in the first place.
This shit is why you hoard data. Download things while you can and save them on a hard drive somewhere, because in 5 years when the corporatization of the internet is complete it will all be gone.
There, FIFY.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
You shouldn't steal things that don't belong to you. No sympathy here.
Except big business stole the public domain and our right to own our software first long before idiots like you enable massive corporate corruption and lawlessness, but lets not let the facts out lobbyist bought IP law because of morons like you slide. The evidence is overwhelming, historically and politically illiterate people like you are useful idiots that allow robber barons to exist.
Lets look at the constitution:
Intellectual Property Clause. Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, of the United States Constitution grants Congress the power "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for **limited times** to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Note it says limited times, not infinite times, it was never intended to grant a permanent private monopoly on human culture to giant corporations. Technically IP is owned by the public and since it is already owned by us we are not stealing since we are the ultimate owners of OUR IP. Intellectual property was a temporarily granted monopoly to encourage the preservation of human culture not the destruction of it.
If it wasn't for ignorant people like yourself governments of the world wouldn't be so corporately owned and corrupt.
George carlin said it best about humanity:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
counter sue for useing ines headers in there own emus.
They benefit from the free workload of the people doing the emulator work but want to shut them down and force people to use there own emulators that do less then the free ones.
That Dragon, Cancer is not a game, it's a visual experience. The developer is supposed to provide a meaningful interaction that challenges players to want to play themselves and see how they do on their own. Games that fail to do this are literally better to watch than to play. Streaming and Lets Plays stopped me from buying many a crappy game, and encouraged me to buy many an awesome game.
Please try claiming streaming and Lets Plays harmed the sales of PUBG, or Fortnite, or DOTA. I'll wait.
I don't disagree the least bit, but I believe Nintendo has started to make money by selling old games on Wii U and Switch. Probably what prompted them to take this more seriously all of a sudden.
Indeed -- visual experience is exactly right.
Also the game itself is very depressing. I couldn't have said it better then Hathur:
You can't deprive anyone of something that they don't already own. That is what it basically comes down to.
Well, people begin with infinite freedom. You have the power to speak, to imprison, to rape, and to kill. You can take from others their infinite freedoms.
People then give up some of this infinite freedom to the government; in exchange, the government provides them protections.
Accordingly, a person gains protection of the control over their own intellectual property. They have the right to create--to have an idea, to put their time and labor into it instead of into something that would produce a tangible and saleable good they can physically control--and to control that creation. They have a right to ensure that they can sell a pulse stepper motor that took years of constant research and a third of their personal wealth to get working rather than having every manufacturer tear down every motor they find and make a copy for a cheap tweak to their own production.
This gives people the right to spend millions making a movie, to spend months or years of their lives writing a book, and to have that time returned to them through the trade of labor--represented by money earned through...labor. Such things are trivial to copy.
Theft is an infringement of your right to property.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Source: https://www.merriam-webster.co...
Source: https://en.oxforddictionaries....
... the exclusive right of making copies, which is reserved by the right holder, is violated.
According to these definitions: theft, as an act of violating the (terms of) law or rights of another, it certainly is a form of infringement - all crime would be a form of infringement in one or another way. However the point is that not every infringement is also theft.
Think of cows for example. They're mammals or even more abstract vertebrates. But is every mammal or vertebrate a cow? Of thing of fingers and thumbs. Every thumb is a finger, but is every finger also a thumb?
Similar to thumbs or cows in the above analogy, theft is a very special case of infringement. Certain criteria must be fulfilled to call it theft. Therefore, at least sometimes, we express what kind of right is infringed - like in "copyright infringement", which signifies that
It should be that a ROM is considered a legal backup of the cartridge you own. But Nintendo has deep pockets and the DMCA.
It's a perfect time for being wasted.
A perfect time to watch the stars.
- Burden Brothers, "Beautiful Night"
Beyond that, as annoying as it may be, they don't have to sell you anything, but still get to keep copyright control.
That's not just annoying, that's blind stupid and wrong. The law is wrong, and needs to change.
The default is No Copyright. Copyright is a legal fiction created to try to incentive production of works. Until that legal fiction was created, there was no such "right". There still isn't any such fundamental right. It's only a legal right, and it can be changed. It should be changed, since the current terms are failing the public who agreed to a restriction of our rights, and are now no longer benefiting from the deal the way we should be.
Artistic works are culture. A people define their identities, piece by piece, bit by bit, by the art they produce and surround themselves with. But culture has to live and breath to work properly. It has to be adoptable and easy to spread to others, sometimes with changes. Copyright that lasts three and four and even six human generations is broken. Personally, I'm a proponent of eliminating it entirely, but I'm willing to compromise and allow a 14 year term, with formal registration required. No extensions.
You have control over the property which was produced, not the property which may be produced. A person has control over the derivatives of their own intellectual property--control which can be taken, as control includes prevention as much as exercise. Imagine if others drove your car, but only when you weren't using it; what have they taken from you?
So, now I do own your words, but you no longer do?
To the car example: What they have taken from me? Assuming that the premise "but only when you weren't using it" is always true, that would depend on what remains of the original car in my possession when they return the car.
For example if they don't refill the tank when returning the car they have deprived me of the fuel that the car uses. They consumed it for themselves and because it is a limited resource I can no longer use it.
Something like that does not happen with intellectual property.
They are putting extra strain on every car part. If they do not pay for replacements they will diminish the performance and resale value of my car. In some cases the parts can't even be replaced in any feasible manner, like the engine. So that would be something they consume for themselves and since again it is finite I can't use it any more for myself.
Besides of the resale value of the property this neither applies to intellectual property. And in the case of resale value there's no intrinsic value to the intellectual property other than which is determined by supply and demand. You can't diminish the quality of the intellectual property that we are talking about here, because it is not subject to degradation.
Of course in the case of (re)sale value you can argue that by creating unlicensed copies you're driving the price people are willing do pay down by increasing the supply without necessarily increasing the demand by the same degree. I would agree with that. But that is not theft by any stretch, that is violating your rights of exclusivity when it comes to creating copies of your product.