Slashdot Mirror
Emulation Legality
PointBlank
writes "Rich Lawrence (author of an Atari 800 emulator)
has written an essay on the legality of emulation and
related issues. If you care about emulation and wish to be
educated on this issues involved, this is a great resource.
"
"It's complicated, but if a corporation (or individual for that matter) can be shown to have knowingly not enforced a trademark against an infringement, they can loose the original right completely."
He's talking about trademarks here, and he
- explicitly
pointed out that he was taking a short sideroad into trademarks near the beginning of the paragraph (because tradmarks are often embedded within copyrighted works). He did not assert that the same idea applied to copyrights (although a cursory reading might give that impression if you're not paying attention).Actually, that's not accurate. A minor can enter a contract, with parental (or guardian) consent. However, the main point is that if you specifically ask a minor to open it, and it could be shown that you were aware that opening the package was tantmount to signing a contract, then the minor could be considered to be acting as your agent, and signing it on your behalf, with your consent. It's very, very grey, and one that would give a judge a pause for thought. I am of the opinion that you would have considered to have agreed to the EULA in this case.
Particularly if you are the parent. If, however, as a parent, a minor purchases and opens a software package, without your consent, or knowledge, then it's worthless. The reason that I state knowledge there, is that the EULA, if it has any legal validitaty at all (a big if), then it is not unfeasable that it could be argued that if the parent was aware the opening the box acepted the liscence, and did not stop the minor, then the parent gave consent. Even more grey than above, but if the EULA is proven legal, then this line of argument might just be accepted.
I'm not a layer (yet), and my field is not in this area, so I may well be wrong.
Hello? Did you actually read the article? Apparently not...
"It's worth noting however that copyrights do not fall under this use it or lose it policy. If you violate a companies copyright, they can act against you at any time. They can ignore you for years with full knowledge of your actions and then come after you, and the case would be just as valid."
Yes, that's a direct quote from the article. Looks to me like your post is the only one with a "Significant Inaccuracy."
Now we're going to start seeing references to Slashdot like: "Slashdot, the online community of Linux users and other warez topics".
Then the people who do it are breaking the law... It sucks.. But seriously.. Techinical demo my ass, UltraHLE was made so people could play n64 games on their PC faster and better than the actual 64 users... Life sucks for them...
I laugh at the thought that they really didn't mean for this to get out of hand...
Is it just me or does this kind of remind you of Janick's little black box from sneakers... ANYONE would have went nuts for that... All scrambling, warez d00d's for the roms...
All I can say is, you gotta stand up, take responsibility for your actions if you're put down... UltraHLE's authors are a bunch of pussies.
-Dextius Alphaeus
If I own, say, an N64, and a couple N64 games, I should be able to run those games on an emulator.
screw the military... i hope they use windows.
The distinction that you're not getting here is that your finished product is NOT the copied work. The copied work is only being used to test your code.
It's not like stealing somebody's Chevy to make a car; it's like stealing somebody's Chevy to fit a hood ornament. The theft of the Chevy is wrong, but the production and subsequent sale of the hood ornaments are not illegal because of that theft.
i am a little confused by this.
if i purchase a piece of software should i not be allow to run it on any machine i choose ?
so long as i dont change it in anyway or use it to make money.
look at a music cd : cant i play it in my boom box
as well as on my pc?
if i copy it to my hard to play from there did i do something wrong? i dont think so.
if i modify it and/ or resell then yes..
a emulator to me is just a different mechanism to allow me to do something i paid for.
am i in error?
Total bullshit. Who got the patent for the original wheel? Necessities generate inovations, not royalties. If a invention is created only to get royalties, it solves a problem that doesn't exist.
Most of these companies make their money in software sales, not hardware. If nintendo had chosen a more reasonable storage medium for its games (Say, cd's or DVD's) and protect them like the Playstations, then Emu software users could buy the software they like, and use it on their home PC. Not too many people own ROM copiers, so to use an N64 game on your PC, you gotta get it from someone else, usually not NINTENDO.
Emulation of the first sort should be ENCOURAGED, while the latter leads to piracy. I have a SNES and a bunch of games, yet I rather use an emulator because it makes my comp an integrated game station. I can play NFL Blitz or Final fantasy 2, without going to a different room, or unplugging consoles. I could always hook up the SNES to my ATI Tuner, but then I would have even more wires tangled in the back of my PC.
Allowing PC's people already own to become part of your potential market is not bad. The connectix PSX emulator will require ORIGINAL CD's.
If it were free, as are most of the other emulators, then one could buy just one game from a system one would not otherwise buy, and play it.
With no protections, no one is motivated to innovate? What BS! People will always innovate; be it for the satisfaction of a job well done, because they want something better, or because they enjoy the process.
/decreases/ in the long run with an extrinsic incentive to perform.
(Wishing I had references) psych studies have shown that quality of work
How stupid is the idea of creating a console that'll work on both platforms? I mean, it seems to me that if I were Sony, I'd come out with an "emulator" of my own for the Playstation. I'd immediately have full control of the market. (Who wants to use a shitty unofficial emulator when they can have it 100%?) I'd make some *money* off of the obviously rabid appetite for emulation. So basically game players would have a choice: buy this little device that hooks up to your TV or buy a software package. The games would work on either system, you'd have a bigger market, happier consumers. Someone mentioned in an earlier post that it's "more convenient" to play on the computer and I definitely agree with that. I don't want to mess with a stupid little box when I can just click or type my way over to the game. Also, I already *have* this great gaming machine here, why wouldn't the game companies want to take advantage of it? Perhaps it's for fear of piracy but they're obviously not doing too well with it now, so it seems it would be worthwhile to at least milk what money you can from the scene.
Atari gave permission to Derek to distribute the ROM's for use with HIS EMULATOR. Not permission to put them in a zip and say 'ok, do whatever the hell you want now'. If you take them from Xformer it's the same as ripping them from a real Atari.
The emulator authors that point to Dereks old emulator as a source are opening themselves up to as much peril as if they just said 'go steal um'.
Why was it removed immediatley?
I think the intent was to capitalize on the ROMs already out there, but when it came out, old ROM sites re-opened and a tremendous number of poeple were saying "have you got any N64 roms!?"
It did get out of hand, their intent was NOT to increase ROM trafficking.
Why must everyone assume its used to play ROMs and whatnot? SOMEONE should at least believe it was just a proof of concept to show the OTHER N64 emulator teams that they were idiots. 2 years is long enough that someone could have created a working emulator.
What is the most famous emulator?
1) All non-IBM PC's
2) All non IBM BIOSes
3) DR-DOS
4) Linux?
5) All non-Intel x86 chips.
It seems to me that the argument makes it illegal
to run Windows 3.0 on top of DrDos, but M$ had to remove their special protections to make that difficult.
David.
ftp://warez.blackdown.org/WareZ/gAMEZ/3mu1atorz/n6 4/ultrahle.zip
FWIW, you can *legally* get the Atari ROMs as part of an old version of Darek Mihocka's Atari XL Emulator for the Atari ST. He asked for (and received!) permission to distribute the ROM images in the archive along with his emulator.
So you can download his package, get the ROM files, and use them with another Atari emulator, and be 100% legal.
Posted by Stephen "The Carp" Carpenter:
Ok...the original poster said:
"Claims that a copyright can become invalid
if yu fail to enforce it"
(which is a mistake...the text says specifically
that this is NOT the case...perhaps not worded
well)
Then you talked about patents.
(Patenets Not-Equal (Copyrights OR Trademarks))
If the case involved patentns then it has no
bearing on trademarks or copyrights. you can NOT
lose a copyright (unless you die and then
reanimate 100 years later...)
Posted by Stephen "The Carp" Carpenter:
I would love to get UltraLHE...
Hell you know what...if I got it I would
download 1 ROM to test it and make sure
it works...then...
I would go out and BUY games for it.
Make a ROM downloader and play it on my
system.
I have no problem buying games. I don't have
ROOM for a game system here...and my monitor blows
away th etelevision.
Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangster Of Love:
"All I can say is, you gotta stand up, take responsibility for your actions if you're put down... UltraHLE's authors are a bunch of pussies."
Bullshit. They're smart. Nintendo is a multinational corporation with enough resources to crush any individual person. Is Salmon Rushdie a pussy for going into hiding after a 1 million dollar bounty was placed on his head for writing a book?
AOL was able to crush the guy who wrote AOL4Free. They tried to hold him responsible for the actions of other people who used the program to escape billing for time spent online.
I don't care if they hoped that the emulator would bankrupt Nintendo, it doesn't matter. If the Emulator is a legal piece of software, they aren't responsible for the illegal actions of other people.
LK
Minors aren't alowed to enter into legally binding contracts. So there.
Not true. IANAL, but, minors can legally sign contracts. They can also break a contract at will until they reach their majority. It is because they can break a contract without threat of breech of contract that companies do not enter into agreements with minors.
First of all -- great article, it told the truth for once.
However, I just want to draw the line between "breaking the law" and "being in the wrong".
I drive at 40MPH, on long straight wide roads with 30MPH limits, because in this case, I think the limit is stupid, so it's a law I choose to ignore.
I drank beer in pubs when I was 17... and I play games I don't legally own, using MAME. So there.
These games *can't* be bought. Maybe if the copyright owners bundled the ROMS onto a CD which I could buy, for a reasonable price, then I'd buy it. But until then, the only way I can play 'em is by breaking the law, but not my concience.
Sure, following up my own comment, ne'er mind...
Of course it's worth mentioning that when the games *can* be bought,
I do. I own a playstation, and I have no intention of ever
playing a gold CD on it (except possibly Thrill Kill, but that's bound to suck)..
What's more, after a few weeks enjoying Snes9X, I went out and bought a SNES. OK, it was second hand, as are all the games, so Nintendo haven't gained a penny, but the point stands....
Just a question, don't a lot of companies put language in their licenses that more or less forbids reverse engineering their products or (in some cases) running them under emulation? And if so, would that (for those specific cases) invalidate the argument that emulation is 'fair use'? (Funny, when what's isn't legally fair.. :-) )
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
How can you say that using unauthorized copies is fair?
The whole point behind a clean-room (read: legal) approach to duplication is that there is the resulting work is original. It might still violate patents, but it can't violate copyrights.
--
Timur "too sexy for my code" Tabi, timur@tabi.org, http://www.tabi.org
Your example shows that laches applies to patents - that much is common knowledge. But then you make a blanket generalization and say that it's applicable to copyrights as well, without offering any legal precedent. Just because you say it's true, doesn't make it so. Why don't you provide proof?
--
Timur "too sexy for my code" Tabi, timur@tabi.org, http://www.tabi.org
The "fair use" clause can only be used when your copying a PORTION of the copyrighted work SOLELY for COMMENTARY. You can't just copy it - you have to add some text that makes a comment about it, or uses it as a reference.
So no, it does not apply here at all.
--
Timur "too sexy for my code" Tabi, timur@tabi.org, http://www.tabi.org
In a free market system, there is only one reason for patents:
- to promote widespread use of good ideas
There is only one reason for copyrights:
- to allow people to make a living from the work that they produce.
The main rational for granting patents in our free market system is to encourage people to publish
their ideas instead of keeping all good ideas as trade secrets. The reason the government was
allowed to grant patents is that in a true free market system, it was recognized that people
would fear other people stealing their ideas which would result in people keeping all their ideas
secret. With a law that says you can't steal ideas, more ideas flow, society benefits.
The main rational for granting copyrights in our free market system is to allow people who advance
the arts (literature, music, painting, sculpting, etc.) make a living pursuing their craft. Without
copyrights, other people could co-opt the work of artists or ruin their reputations. Then, artistans
would be forced to make a living another way leaving our society culturally void.
Amazingly, two of the biggest flaws in a true free market system were corrected with these two
simple principles. Notice that the main goal is to improve society, I didn't mention individual
motivation or money at all. Also note, that ALL patents and copyrights revert to the public after
some time (although it may be longer than you want).
At least the writers of the US Constitution were wise enough to recogize the flaw and do something
about it. You may not like the solution they came up with, but their solution has proved workable
for over 200 years. How many of you can say that about some code you hacked up?
IMHO, many people have a overblow notion of violating patents. If I was running a company,
I would ignore all patents, get as many as I could and if anyone complains, cross license. Nearly
all major corporations are run this way.
Copyright, is another story. Ironically the problem most people perceive with the copyright
system is due to the big publishers (music, book, etc.), but almost everyone wants to get published
by big publishers. If you think about it, we're getting exactly what we deserve.
original slashdot link: /01/14/0932236.shtml
http://slashdot.org/articles/99
CAUCUS:
Coalition Against Unlimited Copyright in the United States
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/eldredvreno/
Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1997
http://cyber.law.harvar d.edu/eldredvreno/evidence/act~1.htm
-l
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
But local law will supercede this restriction (in fact, Microsoft's EULA explicitely states that the reverse engineering clause will be superceded by any applicable laws). I know many European countries have upheld the rights to reverse-engineering, and I'm fairly certain that the U.S. has too.
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
"Every man is a mob, a chain gang of idiots." - Jonathan Nolan, Memento Mori
One of the things that interested me most about the Sony/Nintendo/ISDA is the claims that the circumvention of copy protection makes them illegal (this was only offhandedly mentioned in the essay). I was under the impression that the contributory copyright infringment provisions of our laws were fairly new (designed mostly to make cracks illegal), and therefore rather untested.
Does anyone know if there is a precedence for the illegality of devices/software that circumvents protections? (I'd imagine court cases might have to do with dongle cracks more than anything else, I don't expect to see cd checks in there.. )
-Teman
There's no mystical energy field that controls my destiny. It's all a lot of simple tricks and nonsense.
I want to see ultraHLE. Where can I get a copy?
You don't exist. Go away. --SysVinit Halt
No, even copying the WHOLE of a copyrighted work
for purposes OTHER than commentary can sometimes
be "fair use".
You should read the judgement in the Sega vs Accolade
case that was linked to in the article,
in particular paragraphs 29 onwards
(the second half).
One of the arguments that Accolade lost was that intermediate copying of a copyrighted work should not infringe upon the original copyright holder's rights if the final product is significantly different from the original. Notwithstanding liscense issues, if a bunch of programmers get together and disassemble a software program for the purpose of crafting an emulator (using several unauthorized copies of the original to do so), this would infringe IP. This to me would seem like fair use. What say the rest of you?
For that matter, if you load on a machine with an Intel chip running in V86 mode, is it emulation?
Let's say that Syrix, a hypothetical company, makes an Intel x86 clone that uses microcode to do everything. Would running Intel software on that chip be emulation?
Emulation is difficult to define legally, and if it were defined strictly, it would make a lot of the normal use of software illegal.
Would running a program on a 386 or compatible chip with the DR[0-4] control registers set up for debugging mode be considered emulation?
Cheers, Joshua. (My website is down. Roadrunner only does password resets through postal mail. .)
Did you know that if you post a comment to slashdot with the hostname in uppercase (i.e, http://SLASHDOT.ORG/comments.pl), it tells you that space aliens have eaten your data?
--jon. Postel is dead. May we all mourn his, and our, loss.
What about the fact that many of these video games are probably being bought by minors and then opened by minors without any adult's consent? Most of the kids I know who play video games wouldn't know the difference between an EULA and Europe. They probably assume that the sticker is there to keep dust out.
Finally, just what does the EULA on some new N64 games state about renting/sublicensing? Almost every commercial software EULA I've seen specifically does not permit such leasing of software. That will go over like a lead balloon with most of the people I know who play video games. They rent almost everything they play.
Cheers, Joshua (the only video game I play is Alleycat, and I play that on my 1981 IBM PC with C/GA and a TV--no emulation there!)
I wish I could change that signature. It's supposed to be a tribute to --jon. Postel, but I can't get my userpreferences-page to change the signature!<screams again>
--jon. Postel is dead. May we all mourn his, and our, loss.
Although most of the information is solid, the author claims that a copyright, like a trademark, can become invalidated if you fail to enforce it. This is not the case.
It always comes down to how distinct and specific the legal protection is for the technology in question. We can't have a market where the first to market with a technology is the only one allowed in the market... but with no protections, no one is motivated to innovate ...
-sk
Copyrights are not like slavery. Your argument is inflammatory and illogical.
I thought that I said (and I could be wrong) was that there needed to be a balance in the market between the rights of creators and the rights of their competitors.