The hypocrisy of 'reproductions'

[Ozzy_98]

Also, if a translation group/individual took money from a repro maker, I don't believe they could longer legally claim their patch was made for non-profit use only to improve their enjoyment of a game they may have already legally purchased (buy an original, dump it, and as long as its still on your shelf you could use th ROM).

Right, even if it was a gift, it still kills any argument. Ys 4 or maybe 7 was going to be translated by Deuce a while ago, but some issues I think in Korea with a lawsuit about a Korean patch killed that project.

Daria, I keep sending you PMs, what the fuck, can you please read what I say and argue points I'm actually saying? Stop pulling shit out of your ass thinking that's what I'm saying. If I'm saying stuff to complex for you, let me know, apparently I need to dumb it down.

-->If you translate someone else's work from Japanese to English, you are taking someone else's work without permission. If you do that, and you try to put stipulations on someone ELSE doing the same to your work, you are a hypocrite. How else do I need to explain this to you<-- This is ALL I'm saying. No more, no less. Next you'll think I'm against translations or rom hacks.

[Ozzy_98]

Since you edited your post after I responded, I'll double post so less confusing:

And this comes back around to my point "Don't be an entitled ass-hat". If you want to play FFJ3 on an NES, no translators don't actually care how you get there. But if you want a dedicated cart, make it yourself, get a friend to do it, whatever. But don't support another guy's for profit repro-making service. To suggest that you have a right to play someone else's work in the format you prefer just because you want it that way IS entitlement.

Ok, there's some more leaps of logic here. You seem to have a hate for people who make repos, and seem to be taking it out on me, but oh well. What the hell makes you think I would do it as a for profit? But it's not like I'm just going to send someone a cart and expect them to do the flashing and soldering work for free; that would make me a dick. Never mind cost of eeproms, and label if I get one (especially if die cut).

We're arguing about two different things here. Over and over and over. And over.

[Daria]

Look, I don't know what you're on about. I've replied to every PM you've sent me. And every post I've made in this thread has been a direct reply to something you've said. If you feel I'm not getting the exact meaning out of your posts that you'd like then maybe you shouldn't muddy your argument with half-baked analogies. You stated previously that people always take your argument the wrong way, while I personally don't normally have issues with other people telling me I don't know how to read. Me thinks the breakdown in communication may lie in your court.

I have one issue which I have stated multiple times; don't sell someone else's work. It's a dick move.

Ultimately it's about respect. I'm a lazy asshole that hasn't learned Japanese, it's is entirely thanks to the work of people like Gideon Zhi, NightCrawler, Tomato, D, etc... that I'm now able to play what have turned out to be some of my hands down favorite RPGs. Those guys don't owe me (or anyone else) a damn thing. They could request that I do 100 jumping jacks before applying one of their patches and I wouldn't think any less of them (I wouldn't do it mind you, but I wouldn't mind that they requested it). Your point is that they're hypocrites (NightCrawler specifically) for voicing expectations about how you use their translations because you feel they had no legal right to make the translations in the first place. To which I say, maybe you're the one being a little hypocritical. Again, they do this shit for free in their spare time. What do you do in return? Bitch about about them?

[Daria]

Ok I'm going to break the PM cycle:

My point is it's NOT your work, you stole MY work if I wrote it in English, and when you translated it, you should have known you have no control over it. And if I planned on releasing the book in Spanish, you completely fucked me over. You have no rights to your work, because it's stealing my work without giving me any credit. If you've not guessed by now, I've been tangled up in this shit before, read some on Nightwolve's patch with Deuce for Ys IV. Nightwolve released a beta patch to people who donated to his site, but would not release it as free, then flipped when someone started sharing it for free on IRC. This donate to get it was just another way of selling Famicom's work as his own, and crossed the line of "Oh I'll help the fans play a game they can't" to "Hey look at the size of my ePenis! ME ME ME, it's MINE!".

In the book example, you have no right to the book, so you can not sell it, no one should be able to. You also have no right to put stipulations on it. It's not your work. It's the original author. How am I* the entitled ass-hat, when you're the one stealing other peoples work and claiming it for yourself? (Ok, not really you, but you get my point. I hope)

No one's claiming, for example, that Dynamic-Designs made Mystic Ark. That is 100% an Enix game. But they translated it, released a patch. By strange co-inky-dink Aeon Genesis also released a Mystic Ark translation patch. And the two are not the same, sure the general story is the same, but the script is completely different. That's because translations are creative works, they are more than just Enix's Japanese script babel-fished into English. When you're playing the Aeon Genesis's version you're reading Ian Kelley's words. You're reading his interpretation of Enix's game. Those are his words. Not Enix's, not yours, not mine. His translation is an original work. His original work.

And actually, yes, morally Ian Kelley has the right to ask that other people not sell his work. And apparently in Europe he even has the legal right...

Does copyright subsist in a translation?

Even if you are infringing someone else's copyright or even if you are unlawfully translating someone else's work, your work will itself qualify for protection as an original copyright.

As a translator you have created something original. As long as you have not copied someone else's translation and providing you have not pledged your right to someone else, you still own the copyright.

http://www.cblesius.co.uk/articles/C...nslations.html

Why literary translators are authors

Copyright is based on the idea of originality: any new expression that is different from existing expressions, is considered the inalienable intellectual property of its author and, as such, enjoys automatic protection. Just like musical or dramatic performances, literary translations are in a double copyright situation: on the one hand there is the copyright of the original author, and on the other the copyright of the translator, who is the author of this particular translation, as distinct from all other possible translations of the same text. This is why the translator enjoys exactly the same legal rights as a writer. It also means that literary translation is not just work for hire, but a form of free expression: when signing a contract with a translator, a publisher is actually commissioning an original work that bears the stamp of its author.

[...]

‘Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author’ (Article 27.2)

http://www.ceatl.eu/translators-rights/legal-status

[Ozzy_98]

Look, I don't know what you're on about. I've replied to every PM you've sent me.

Umm, half of your replies have been just quotes of me, no reply from you. Like the last one:

And every post I've made in this thread has been a direct reply to something you've said. If you feel I'm not getting the exact meaning out of your posts that you'd like then maybe you shouldn't muddy your argument with half-baked analogies. You stated previously that people always take your argument the wrong way, while I personally don't normally have issues with other people telling me I don't know how to read. Me thinks the breakdown in communication may lie in your court.

I didn't say people always take my argument the wrong way. What I stated was sarcasm because fan boys (and girls)\haters love to jump over someone at the slightest hint of disagreement. Same thing happens if I post saying something like "I've been playing more xbox than Nintendo", someone will read that as saying I love xbox and dislike Nintendo. Look at how I said "I'd like a repo of Ys 5 in English" and somehow you assume that means I'm going to buy it from some underground store rather than have someone I know who can do it perform the work for me.

I have one issue which I have stated multiple times; don't sell someone else's work. It's a dick move.

And my point is, translation without permission is not "your" work. I am not saying it's ok to sell fan translations, and I'm not saying "repos are good, let's fund dipshits who make fake Little Sampson's".

Ultimately it's about respect. I'm a lazy asshole that hasn't learned Japanese, it's is entirely thanks to the work of people like Gideon Zhi, NightCrawler, Tomato, D, etc... that I'm now able to play what have turned out to be some of my hands down favorite RPGs. Those guys don't owe me (or anyone else) a damn thing.

Wrong. They owe the people who made the game. The people who programmed the game and wrote the script they translated, that's who they owe at least a "thank you". Without permission, they have no right to give their translated scripts to anyone.

That does not mean that anyone else can do what they want with the script.

Your point is that they're hypocrites (NightCrawler specifically) for voicing expectations about how you use their translations because you feel they had no legal right to make the translations in the first place. To which I say, maybe you're the one being a little hypocritical. Again, they do this shit for free in their spare time. What do you do in return? Bitch about about them?

nightwolve, nightcrawler is a completely different guy. Nightwolve is the guy who charged money for translations (He did not translate, he was the hacker), and got to the point deuce had to threaten liable. http://www.hardcoregaming101.net/ysi...interviews.htm down to the Jeff Nussbaum portion.

That's because translations are creative works, they are more than just Enix's Japanese script babel-fished into English. When you're playing the Aeon Genesis's version you're reading Ian Kelley's words. You're reading his interpretation of Enix's game. Those are his words. Not Enix's, not yours, not mine. His translation is an original work. His original work.

And I, and the US courts, disagree with that. He added SOME text, but it's not his fully work. It's based off someone else's work, and he doesn't have permission for it. For your first link, it's someone's BLOG, while I quoted the us copyright department, and mine disagrees with the blog. "Even if you are infringing someone else's copyright or even if you are unlawfully translating someone else's work, your work will itself qualify for protection as an original copyright. " is not true in the US. Once you infringe, you lose the majority of your copyright protection. If you have rights to do the translation, than as everyone else in the thread agrees, it's yours and you own it. If you translate something that does not belong to you, in the US, you can not claim copyright protection. It doesn't mean the owner of the copyright can just take your work and use it however.

And your link to the EU is only about people with permission to make the translations. Again, I'm only saying people without permission to make translations are abusing someone elses work, no matter how much effort it takes them to do it.


And keep in mind, I *LOVE* translations. I just don't like when people think it's their work; if you're reading the Japanese script as you write yours, it's not your work. I'm not bashing anyone who translates, seeing how I've helped before.

Now here's where it personally affects me. Many many moons ago, I was in the demo scene for TG-16\PC-Engine. http://rhwiii.info/consoleroms/ These are my roms, that I programmed. Cowering marked my roms as PD, public domain, as every rom is marked. My roms are *NOT* public domain. You may not do whatever you want to it. However, I know fully well I have no legal right or recourse for them, because I stole most of my graphics. And the music code. And the music. Stole the last one from someone who stole it from mega man II. I was pissed at them being labeled public domain, but it would be hypocritical of me to try to do anything about it; I stole part of it after all.

This thread get much bigger I can make it into a book and see who can translate it for me.

[Richter Belmount]

[bb_hood]

I'm not up to date with all the legal mumbo jumbo, but how would just buying a flash cart be any better than buying a repro cart? Both are used to play the translated ROM on actual hardware, and by purchasing a flash cart, I'm giving someone money in exchange for that ability. If the translator doesn't want people to monetize his translation, shouldn't he be against flash carts too? The seller of the flash cart is making money off my ability to play the translated ROM on actual hardware, just like the repro maker does. The only difference is that I only have to pay for the privilege once with a flash cart versus once for each game with repros. The general principle of paying for the ability to play the translation on actual hardware is still identical.

Here is my take on the whole flash cart verses repro cart issue.
First of all, you buy a flash cart you are getting a device that can play almost any games for that one system, including translations, hacks, homebrews. No actual games are sold with the flash cart. Most flashcarts cost 80-150$, soemtimes more.
When you buy a repro, you are paying somebody for one playable game (which can be played off a flash cart). Its like you are paying someone to make you a copy of a game. Repros will cost about 40-50$ and will play one game.
I generally dont think people should be able to sell other people work, which is why I look down on repros. Plus it takes donor carts which is wasteful. Not that I really care if someone wrecks his copy of mario 2, it just seems silly to break an original nintendo product from 1985 to make a hacked together repro that can be played off flash carts.
I think flash carts are a excellent way to play games. I think everybody should be able to enjoy old nes/genesis/snes/atari games without having to own an original or pay for some download.
I think flash carts are an excellent investment while repros are a total waste of money.
Regarding translation patches, I dont quite follow the argument, but I think people should be free to make translation patches, and they can CONSIDER the 'translation' to be their work, but that means shit because they cant really sell it. All they can expect is credit for doing the work. Just because someone translated some japanese game does not give them the right to make money selling that game as if it their work. They should be doing these translations because they are fans or whatever and they should be happy to share their work.

[Daria]

For the record I've sent two empty PMs, and that's because most every other forum I use requires you to hit a button to reply to a PM. DP already has the form for replying open so when I hit the button out of habit it just sends you back your quote. But that has really nothing to do with this topic.

As for the rest of your post, I'm just beating a dead horse at this point. Suffice to say, I disagree with you.

[badinsults]

I'm not up to date with all the legal mumbo jumbo, but how would just buying a flash cart be any better than buying a repro cart? Both are used to play the translated ROM on actual hardware, and by purchasing a flash cart, I'm giving someone money in exchange for that ability. If the translator doesn't want people to monetize his translation, shouldn't he be against flash carts too? The seller of the flash cart is making money off my ability to play the translated ROM on actual hardware, just like the repro maker does. The only difference is that I only have to pay for the privilege once with a flash cart versus once for each game with repros. The general principle of paying for the ability to play the translation on actual hardware is still identical.

I would disagree with this sentiment. The reason that fan translators get upset about reproductions comes down to the fact that they get uneasy if their patches get sold. They don't want to get in legal trouble. It would be difficult to go after a fan translator who just distributes a patch and lets a private person use that patch (with the implicit "you own the cart already" argument). The word "reproduction" is just a nice word for "pirated game". Selling a reproduction is no different than selling a burned disc of a modern game, though most companies don't bother going after them because they are small time operations. The makers of translation patches don't want any negative attention sent their way from game companies through the sale of pirated copies of games.

A flash cart, however, is not explicitly sold with any game on it. You have to put the games (patched or not) on them after you buy them. There is no destruction of carts, nor is there any copyright infringement at sale. Selling a flash cart is 100% legal, and there are people who get them for playing homebrews and for development work. I've played some of the MSU-1 demos on my SD2SNES, for instance. Playing a translation patched game on a flash cart also brings less negative attention to the hacker, which is the main thing they desire.

[Kiddo]

I sympathize with the fan translators that are upset with other people making repro carts to profit off their work without their consent.

I would like to add my own addition to this as someone who helped the Mottzilla Patch for BS Zelda: Sometimes there's way more work to a "fan translation" than simply a script. The BS Zelda games are obviously good examples of this because they essentially port the game code from the non-functional Satellaview to a base SNES to increase compatibility, all while restoring various pieces of data required to play the games again. For a more common-esque example, byuu's Der Langrisser translation also polished up graphcs and fixed several major game bugs. At these points, the lines blur between the work of a "fan translation" and the work of what is more defined as "ROM hacks".

Of course, this probably doesn't matter much to the more greedy repro producers, who will repro every SMW ROM hack that works without giving a cut to any of the hackers (Or, in some cases, even testing to make sure the ROM hack actually DOES work.)

In fact there have been cases of authors being sued because something in their books was too much like a fanfic (Mercedes Lackey was a huge victim of this), and this is why most writers are cautioned to never read fanfiction anymore. Likewise, you ever wonder why Square made their own translation for FF5 on Playstation when fans had already translated the SNES ROM? Because, yes, they could indeed be sued for simply using someone else's translation.

I think it'd be better to cite a more recent example: The English releases of "Monster World IV" that Sega put out on XBLA n' whatnot have a different translation from the 100% finished fan translation that was done for years before then. We will likely see this scenario repeat for Final Fantasy Type-0, which recently got a PSP fan translation just days before PS4/XBox one-ported English versions were announced.

It's also frequently mentioned during people's cries for NoA to support Mother 3 that Nintendo can't just throw the fan translation on Virtual Console. (This in spite of the fact that the translators themselves would actually desire for this outcome.)

For the note of debates of law: video games are an international business, and thus larger corporations apply the broadest strokes in regard to copyright law. The fact that UK law was made explicitly clear in this thread should show why Nintendo and Square would rather re-translate than use a fan translation. (And I wouldn't take modern American law seriously anyway, since nowadays it is practically bought by big corporations, rather than judged for the general interest of the people, so I haven't really bothered reading much more into that, although I'd say a case like "Sony vs. Bleem" would apply just as much logically to fan translations as Bleem does to emulators.)
That being said, I don't think much of that really matters in a clear-cut case of a game translation being essentially used for piracy without consent of the hobby coder who made it for an explicitly different purpose.

Flash Carts vs. Repro carts should be an obvious argument: You're simply not explicitly buying someone else's work with a flash cart. Flash carts are also a way better value for the customer than repros, which seem grossly overpriced in comparison. (Why would you pay $100+ for BS Zelda: Ancient Stone Tablets when you can get a SNES Powerpak or Super Everdrive for cheaper? Even the most expensive cart, the sd2snes, only cost about as much as 4-5 repros.)

[Kitsune Sniper]

I would disagree with this sentiment. The reason that fan translators get upset about reproductions comes down to the fact that they get uneasy if their patches get sold. They don't want to get in legal trouble. It would be difficult to go after a fan translator who just distributes a patch and lets a private person use that patch (with the implicit "you own the cart already" argument). The word "reproduction" is just a nice word for "pirated game". Selling a reproduction is no different than selling a burned disc of a modern game, though most companies don't bother going after them because they are small time operations. The makers of translation patches don't want any negative attention sent their way from game companies through the sale of pirated copies of games.

A flash cart, however, is not explicitly sold with any game on it. You have to put the games (patched or not) on them after you buy them. There is no destruction of carts, nor is there any copyright infringement at sale. Selling a flash cart is 100% legal, and there are people who get them for playing homebrews and for development work. I've played some of the MSU-1 demos on my SD2SNES, for instance. Playing a translation patched game on a flash cart also brings less negative attention to the hacker, which is the main thing they desire.

THANK YOU.

Finally, someone fucking gets it.

[Melf]

If I sell you a flashcart, I'm not banking on the fact that you're going to play Star Ocean in english. You can play any game you want to load on the hardware, maybe they're not even copyrighted products, prehaps you're buying the product to play games you've personally developed. I don't know. But if I produce a Star Ocean cart in english I'm directly selling someone else's work. That cart never would have sold in Japanese, what would be the point of buying it over an SFC original? The only thing that makes my cart valuable in the eyes of a buyer is that it's playable in english. A fact that ultimately I had nothing to do with. That's the difference.

Does anyone who sells flash carts honestly believe that people are not going to play copyrighted work? For most of these products, it's not only implied, it's actually advertised as a feature. Look at the listing for the Genesis Everdrive, for example. The first three features listed? It supports the Genesis, 32X, and Master System libraries. The intent of the product is pretty clear there.

To suggest that you have a right to play someone else's work in the format you prefer just because you want it that way IS entitlement.

Aren't flash cards exactly the same thing in this regard, though? Paying someone for the ability to play everyone else's work (ROMs of all types) in this preferred format is less an example of entitlement than doing so on a game-by-game basis? The only difference you're establishing here is that someone is selling you the means to play trademarked work instead of outright selling you the trademark work itself. In terms of your argument of ethics regarding repros, there's ultimately no difference. Facilitating the means to violate copyright is as shady as actually doing it yourself, so again, there's no moral high ground to flash cards in today's consumer market. Everyone knows that people are using them to play ROMs of all types, including those that are copyrighted.

Here is my take on the whole flash cart verses repro cart issue.
First of all, you buy a flash cart you are getting a device that can play almost any games for that one system, including translations, hacks, homebrews. No actual games are sold with the flash cart. Most flashcarts cost 80-150$, soemtimes more.
When you buy a repro, you are paying somebody for one playable game (which can be played off a flash cart). Its like you are paying someone to make you a copy of a game. Repros will cost about 40-50$ and will play one game.
I generally dont think people should be able to sell other people work, which is why I look down on repros. Plus it takes donor carts which is wasteful. Not that I really care if someone wrecks his copy of mario 2, it just seems silly to break an original nintendo product from 1985 to make a hacked together repro that can be played off flash carts.
I think flash carts are a excellent way to play games. I think everybody should be able to enjoy old nes/genesis/snes/atari games without having to own an original or pay for some download.

But if we're arguing intent, how then are flash cards inherently more moral than repros? You're paying someone for the means to play games that are someone else's work. The only difference is that you're paying one person for those means rather than paying for each game individually.

I would disagree with this sentiment. The reason that fan translators get upset about reproductions comes down to the fact that they get uneasy if their patches get sold. They don't want to get in legal trouble. It would be difficult to go after a fan translator who just distributes a patch and lets a private person use that patch (with the implicit "you own the cart already" argument). The word "reproduction" is just a nice word for "pirated game". Selling a reproduction is no different than selling a burned disc of a modern game, though most companies don't bother going after them because they are small time operations. The makers of translation patches don't want any negative attention sent their way from game companies through the sale of pirated copies of games.

A flash cart, however, is not explicitly sold with any game on it. You have to put the games (patched or not) on them after you buy them. There is no destruction of carts, nor is there any copyright infringement at sale. Selling a flash cart is 100% legal, and there are people who get them for playing homebrews and for development work. I've played some of the MSU-1 demos on my SD2SNES, for instance. Playing a translation patched game on a flash cart also brings less negative attention to the hacker, which is the main thing they desire.

Again, I seriously doubt that anyone who sells flash carts doesn't think people are going to play copyrighted ROMs on them, especially when they advertise that feature as a selling point. If we're talking about ethics (and I'm not taking anyone's side, just pointing this out), then facilitating the means to infringe on copyright is as shady as doing it yourself.

[bb_hood]

But if we're arguing intent, how then are flash cards inherently more moral than repros? You're paying someone for the means to play games that are someone else's work. The only difference is that you're paying one person for those means rather than paying for each game individually.


Again, I seriously doubt that anyone who sells flash carts doesn't think people are going to play copyrighted ROMs on them, especially when they advertise that feature as a selling point. If we're talking about ethics (and I'm not taking anyone's side, just pointing this out), then facilitating the means to infringe on copyright is as shady as doing it yourself.

When you buy a repro, its like buying a copied dvd or other copied media. The seller has no right to sell that content.
With flash carts no money is exchanged for the games themselves. Nobody is selling someone elses work. With flash carts its no different than playing them on your computer on an emulator, except you can utilize the original hardware.
So if you have a moral issue with playing roms you dont legally own then stay away from emulators, flash carts, repros, downloading music, anything like that.
I dont think people should have to resort to paying 50-400$ for a single nes game because the only other 'morally legit' option is buying on ebay.
These older roms have been floating around the internet for years and years. People should be able to enjoy them without dropping cash.

[Ozzy_98]

Flash carts would not be a copyright issue, but would fall under DMCA in America still. Side note, it's a misunderstanding that DMCA is an American thing, most of the DMCA came from the WIPO. Most countries have very similar copyright laws (Not the same; every country has to disagree on something) since they're based on the same international treaties (Berne and WIPO). But different countries interpret the laws differently. So two countries may agree, reverse engineering something is bad, but not agree on what reverse engineering really is. No two JUDGES can even agree on laws; if everyone always new the law in black and white terms, there would never be court cases. Everyone could take one look at it and know instantly where it stood.

[Melf]

When you buy a repro, its like buying a copied dvd or other copied media. The seller has no right to sell that content.

I dont think people should have to resort to paying 50-400$ for a single nes game because the only other 'morally legit' option is buying on ebay.
These older roms have been floating around the internet for years and years. People should be able to enjoy them without dropping cash.

See, these two statements are utterly contradictory. Obtaining copyrighted material illegally for free is no better than paying for it.

But, I'm not trying to debate the morality of emulation. I just wanted to point out that flash carts are sold with the often expressed intent of playing copyrighted material, which is only a more roundabout way of piracy than buying a repro cart. No money is exchanged for the games themselves, but you're provided with a vehicle for obtaining ALL of them for free, whereas repros make you pay on a game-by-game basis. The only difference is how much you can acquire for what you pay.

Repro cart = pre-fabricated piracy.
Flash cart = piracy with some assembly required.

I agree with the other concurrent argument in this thread about repro makers not monetizing a translator's work without consent. Legal or not, it's just not cool. But then, if you're making repro carts, consent is not a priority!

[bb_hood]

See, these two statements are utterly contradictory. Obtaining copyrighted material illegally for free is no better than paying for it.

But, I'm not trying to debate the morality of emulation. I just wanted to point out that flash carts are sold with the often expressed intent of playing copyrighted material, which is only a more roundabout way of piracy than buying a repro cart. No money is exchanged for the games themselves, but you're provided with a vehicle for obtaining ALL of them for free, whereas repros make you pay on a game-by-game basis. The only difference is how much you can acquire for what you pay.

Repro cart = pre-fabricated piracy.
Flash cart = piracy with some assembly required.

I agree with the other concurrent argument in this thread about repro makers not monetizing a translator's work without consent. Legal or not, it's just not cool. But then, if you're making repro carts, consent is not a priority!

Well, first of all the vehicle for obtaining the roms is the computer which downloads them from the internet.
Second, you are missing my point. With repros, someone is selling, making profit off someone elses work. That shit pisses people off.
With flash carts, you can simply play roms on your nintendo system as opposed to the computer (which they were downloaded from).
Im not arguing the morality of either, because sure it basically comes down to the use of the roms. My main point is that people selling repros are just taking advantage of people who want to play games that can be downloaded for free.

[Ozzy_98]

So am I'm right in assuming people are talking about places like timewalk, saying they're making profit on repos?

[Melf]

But the fact that flash carts are made to allow you to download those games makes them just as shady, I think. You illegally download those games for free to play on the cart you were sold... with that specific intent. So again, the ease with which they allow you to play ROMs is a major selling point (many list the programming features as "in addition to" being able to play ROMs). So, you're not really more ethical or moral by playing illegally obtained ROMs on a flash cart than you are on repro carts, and in a sense, the flash cart makers are taking advantage of those who own the copyrights to the ROMs that run on their flash carts!

I'm not debating the morals of emulation, as I said. I'm just pointing out that neither option is really a higher road than the other, since the intent of use for both is identical. And I agree that repro makers are taking advantage by selling items that don't belong to them and cost little to obtain. However, I think that the reason there's a market for them is because some people like to have an actual cart and like how it looks on their shelf. That's a debatable point, to be sure, but I think that's a popular rationale.

[Rickstilwell1]

But the fact that flash carts are made to allow you to download those games makes them just as shady, I think. You illegally download those games for free to play on the cart you were sold... with that specific intent. So again, the ease with which they allow you to play ROMs is a major selling point (many list the programming features as "in addition to" being able to play ROMs). So, you're not really more ethical or moral by playing illegally obtained ROMs on a flash cart than you are on repro carts, and in a sense, the flash cart makers are taking advantage of those who own the copyrights to the ROMs that run on their flash carts!

I'm not debating the morals of emulation, as I said. I'm just pointing out that neither option is really a higher road than the other, since the intent of use for both is identical. And I agree that repro makers are taking advantage by selling items that don't belong to them and cost little to obtain. However, I think that the reason there's a market for them is because some people like to have an actual cart and like how it looks on their shelf. That's a debatable point, to be sure, but I think that's a popular rationale.

In other words, you think they should eliminate all CD, DVD and Blu Ray burners from the market because they can be used to burn illegal copies of those formats. A flash cart to homebrews is no different from an unsigned friend's band to your cd burner.

[Ozzy_98]

As one of the "evil people dumping\sharing roms", we never liked being lumped with wearz. While some people were delusional and felt there was a black and white difference between the two, most of us knew it wasn't right or legal to share the roms, but it wasn't on the same level as sharing windows 2K isos. Most of us had rules, no systems\games still in production, stuff like that. The goal was to keep the old games alive, and to let people see games they never would have before, such as Biomechanical Toy, Knights of Valour, Goonies 1, ect. I also fully admit, while many others disagree, that roms of games not being sold DOES still hurt the copyright holder, since it affects their IP if they were to re-release the game. It also HELPS, by creating more word-of-mouth for it, and making more people want to play it. One of those can't win situations.

I mean heck, look at my freakin avatar.