Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Nintendo's Offensive, Tragic, and Totally Legal Erasure of ROM Sites (vice.com)

Posted by msmash on from the gauging-the-situation dept.

"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.

5 of 334 comments (clear)

  1. Need a "use it or lose it" IP policy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    IP Protection laws need to be on a "use it or lose it" basis. If you're no longer producing or providing the ability to use an IP, you lose it to the public domain.

    IP Protection laws are meant to protect profits derived from innovation. Once the innovation is finished and there are no more profits to protect, you're done.

    That's the way it ought to be.

    1. Re:Need a "use it or lose it" IP policy by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This just shows that copyright terms are too long. Copyright is meant as an incentive to produce new creative works, and no one (especially a business) is significantly motivated by what might happen after they are dead. Make it roughly equal to patent protection and move on - Toru Iwatani didn't create Pac Man because he thought royalties would be paid to Namco for 90 years, he did it because Namco paid him to fulfil an immediate need they had to sell competitive arcade consoles. If they only had 5 or 10 years of protection, they still would have paid him to create Pac Man.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:Need a "use it or lose it" IP policy by farble1670 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      IP Protection laws need to be on a "use it or lose it" basis. If you're no longer producing or providing the ability to use an IP, you lose it to the public domain.

      Agreed. What do you think is a better course of action to achieve that end?

      1. Lobby lawmakers.
      2. Play a bunch of games you downloaded and didn't pay for.

      I'm guessing most freedom-fighters here opt for option 2.

    3. Re:Need a "use it or lose it" IP policy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Agreed. What do you think is a better course of action to achieve that end?

      1. Lobby lawmakers.
      2. Play a bunch of games you downloaded and didn't pay for.

      I'm guessing most freedom-fighters here opt for option 2.

      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.

  2. Re:Ok. by FictionPimp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Willful disobedience is a valid way to protest an unjust system.