Slashdot Mirror
Nintendo's Offensive, Tragic, and Totally Legal Erasure of ROM Sites (vice.com)
"The damage that removing ROMs from the internet could do to video games as a whole is catastrophic." From a report: In July, Nintendo sued two popular ROM sites, LoveROMS and LoveRetro.co, for what it called "brazen and mass-scale infringement of Nintendo's intellectual property rights." Both sites have since shut down. On Wednesday, another big, 18-year-old ROM site, EmuParadise, said it would no longer be able to allow people to download old games due to "potentially disastrous consequences." Nintendo owns the intellectual property for its games, and when people pirate them instead of buying a Nintendo Super NES Classic Edition or a downloading a copy from one of its digital storefronts, it can argue it's losing money. According to Nintendo's official site, ROMs and video game emulation also represent "the greatest threat to date to the intellectual property rights of video game developers," and "have the potential to significantly damage" tens of thousands of jobs. Even when a Nintendo game isn't for sale, it's still the company's intellectual property, and it can enforce its copyright if it wants.
But the damage that removing ROMs from the internet could do to video games as a whole is catastrophic. Many game developers and people who have otherwise made video games a major part of their lives, especially those who grew up in low-income households or outside a Western country, wouldn't have been inspired to take that path if it wasn't for ROMs. Entire chapters of video game history would be lost if ROMs and emulation didn't preserve games where publishers failed to. And perhaps most importantly, denying people access to ROMs makes the process of educating them in game development much more difficult, potentially hobbling future generations of video game makers.
But the damage that removing ROMs from the internet could do to video games as a whole is catastrophic. Many game developers and people who have otherwise made video games a major part of their lives, especially those who grew up in low-income households or outside a Western country, wouldn't have been inspired to take that path if it wasn't for ROMs. Entire chapters of video game history would be lost if ROMs and emulation didn't preserve games where publishers failed to. And perhaps most importantly, denying people access to ROMs makes the process of educating them in game development much more difficult, potentially hobbling future generations of video game makers.
There are MANY nes and snes games that ninentendo did NOT publish and has no particular stake in.
Not true. For example, the NES classic edition has Capcom, Konami, Square, and others. They have a stake in it. Also, I would presume they also have some copyrighted material even in third party roms (e.g. library code) so they also almost certainly have a right.
If a copyright holder is active then its not abandonware.
It's worthkeeping in mind that abandonware is not a legally recognized thing. The holder of the rights can at any point decide to go after it.
Only the original copyright holder has the right to make money off these roms.
Financial gain is not a requirement to be sued for violating copyright.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Fun fact. I tried that once. Wrote a letter. Sent it to my Congressman. Guess who he was? Mike Pence. Got a pretty cordial letter, all things considering. Basically regurgitated the importance of copyright without really at all addressing my concerns.
I understand your position. The only realistic chance I have of seeing a change where I live would be to run for office. I think even optimistically I have no chance of winning, but at least in theory that could drive what candidate had a chance of winning. I doubt it'd change copyright law substantially the way I want (14-20 years max) in my lifetime, though.
Not how the law works, angry guy on the internet.
It was essentially abandoned property.
You may feel justified in taking something that has been ignored for many years. But legally you can't implicitly abandon your copyright. You have a copyright on your creations for many decades (in some cases 120 years).
(following is US law, but other countries have similar but not identical laws)
Trademark on the other hand does revert if not enforced. And there is no limit in duration.
Patents are active for as long as they are registered.(20 years, typically), even if you let people violate them for years.
Mask Works also work for as long as they are registered(10 years from start of registration)
Now for an analogy: If I didn't mow my property for 20 years, and your kids grew up playing on it without me saying a word about it. Would they be able to visit that property any time they wanted as adults? Do your grandkids automatically get to use it too. Now I put up a fence, and call the cops on your grand kids for trespassing. Would I be a total dick? Would I have a legal right to do so? (yes and probably)
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Don't kid yourself. It's a fucking lazy way to protest and unjust system.
I don't respond to AC's.