Rom and emulators? How legal?

[HappehLemons]

I've been wondering how legal roms and emulators actually are. The general idea is that emulators are legal but roms are not, but I remember Sony suing Bleem and Connectix Virtual Game Station (VGS) and Nintendo threating to take legal action against UltraHLE.

Now about ROMs on the Nintendo website it says..

Can I Download a Nintendo ROM from the Internet if I Already Own the Authentic Game?

There is a good deal of misinformation on the Internet regarding the backup/archival copy exception. It is not a "second copy" rule and is often mistakenly cited for the proposition that if you have one lawful copy of a copyrighted work, you are entitled to have a second copy of the copyrighted work even if that second copy is an infringing copy. The backup/archival copy exception is a very narrow limitation relating to a copy being made by the rightful owner of an authentic game to ensure he or she has one in the event of damage or destruction of the authentic. Therefore, whether you have an authentic game or not, or whether you have possession of a Nintendo ROM for a limited amount of time, i.e. 24 hours, it is illegal to download and play a Nintendo ROM from the Internet.

So from that I'm getting the impression that it's OKAY to make ONE backup copy of any game you own, but it's not okay to download a copy of the internet and deem it your one backup copy.

Now this says...

Are Game Copying Devices Illegal?

Yes. Game copiers enable users to illegally copy video game software onto floppy disks, writeable compact disks or the hard drive of a personal computer. They enable the user to make, play and distribute illegal copies of video game software which violates Nintendo's copyrights and trademarks. These devices also allow for the uploading and downloading of ROMs to and from the Internet. Based upon the functions of these devices, they are illegal.

But I don't understand.. how you can make your "one legal backup copy" WITHOUT a game copy device? IE I want to backup a NES cart and make my one legal backup copy, but how do I go about legally doing it without a game copy device?

[buzz_n64]

Simple answer. Nintendo is not the law, they just want to make money off of you. They'll phrase the law in such a way to go in favor with their desired policies.

[megasdkirby]

From what I understand. if I have a copy of a game, I am entitled to own a backup of my own copy. This means that I must make a backup of my own existing copy and not from any other copy, either it be from a friend or downloaded online.

Now, I don't know about copiers per se. On one side, it can be used to legally make a copy of a game you already own from your own existing copy. However, said copiers can be used to copy a game you don't own or copy a game you do own and share it online or offline with others.

Also, if anything used to make a copy is illegal, is a computer illegal? It can, in most cases, make easy copies of CD/DVD games. And what about flash cards? Are they fully illegal, or just in the "gray area" in which they could be legal but people use it for illegal uses?

[betamax001]

I always thought if I had the cart of the game, then I could have a rom of it. I use a variety of emulators on my laptop to play my old games on our new 3D HDTV, which if I could hook my Genesis or NES to, it would probably look like shit. Also I emulate to play games at college, so i don't have to worry about anyone stealing my copy of Maze Craze or Lightening Force.

"Unless they stole my laptop."

[portnoyd]

The honest truth is you are using something you didn't pay for. Obviously illegal. But really, a matter of opinion depending on who you ask.

Us: Who gives a shit.
Them: If we catch you with a ROM, we will castrate you.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

From Nintendo: Can I Download a Nintendo ROM from the Internet if I Already Own the Authentic Game?

There is a good deal of misinformation on the Internet regarding the backup/archival copy exception. It is not a "second copy" rule and is often mistakenly cited for the proposition that if you have one lawful copy of a copyrighted work, you are entitled to have a second copy of the copyrighted work even if that second copy is an infringing copy. The backup/archival copy exception is a very narrow limitation relating to a copy being made by the rightful owner of an authentic game to ensure he or she has one in the event of damage or destruction of the authentic. Therefore, whether you have an authentic game or not, or whether you have possession of a Nintendo ROM for a limited amount of time, i.e. 24 hours, it is illegal to download and play a Nintendo ROM from the Internet.

So from that I'm getting the impression that it's OKAY to make ONE backup copy of any game you own, but it's not okay to download a copy of the internet and deem it your one backup copy.

I think you're generally misinterpreting what Nintendo is saying.

They state that people often mistakenly believe that if you own a legitimate commercial copy of a "copyrighted work" that you are entitled to have a "second copy" based on existing copyright laws.

Even though they reference that belief in the middle, they reiterate that this belief is not accurate as it relates to Nintendo games/roms at the end of the paragraph.

Bottom line - everything you need to know about an individual game and your rights as an owner/license holder of a commercial copy can be found on the END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT.

Outside of a game on a generally volatile/unstable magnetic media (cassette, floppy disc) I can't think of any game from the NES era onward that states that is is legal or acceptable for the end user to create a "backup copy" in the EULA.

Essentially by the letter the EULA of almost any/every modern game - any copyrighted game can not be copied or transferred from the commercial media it is sold on, even for the purpose of a "backup".

Of course, whether any company is going to go after a user who is making a single backup copy of a game for personal purposes is very unlikely.

Like so many things to do with copyright, only if it becomes a matter of damaging the profits of the copyright owner does it become problematic.

Start archiving fullsets of roms and hosting them on the web or selling them on eBay and you'll have a much bigger target on your back than the user breaking EULA by making a single backup copy of a game that sits on his/her shelf.

[Icarus Moonsight]

It's a hard question to approach, let alone answer. The existing laws are a highly interpretive mess and there is so much of it that it takes a highly specialized professional to figure out even the most basic strategy for application/defense. Even those specialists often need to bullshit, wrangle or bluff their way through procedure when they encounter a particularly foggy area.

You get a wide degree of opinions on the matter, but generally, people can't explicitly define any sort of objective standards when pushed. Hell, some can't even give explicit subjective standards. While there are ways to exploit for gain off the work of others through emu/roms, one can't say with their integrity intact that all emu/rom use violates the property rights of content creators and publishers. Just the same, copyright enforcement can be, and recently has been frequently, unethically applied.

Did I mention it's a whole big ball of mess? I call for a reset.

[k8track]

See, now, that's not something I really ever wonder about. The problem here is that the question is fallacious to begin with. The question you should be asking is, "Roms and emulators? How awesome?" And the answer is, of course, way.

Don't lose any sleep over it.

[dendawg]

I remember Sony suing Bleem.....


Sony Vs. Bleem was nothing more than Sony pulling a dick move, plain and simple, by attempting to bully Bleem out of businesss. Bleem won in the end, but it was a Pyrrhic victory. They just couldn't pay their legal bills from their battle with the juggernaut.

[Gentlegamer]

Simple answer. Nintendo is not the law, they just want to make money off of you. They'll phrase the law in such a way to go in favor with their desired policies.
This. Only take legal advice from a lawyer, and never from the potential opposing party.

[jammajup]

It really the same as illegally downloading music and films its wrong but hundreds of thousands of people still do it anyways because they know how too.
People modify there newest consoles if pos to fill the harddrive with copies of latest games and there is no sign of the Nintendo Ninjas or Sega Samauri knocking the door down any day soon,game companies do not exactly seem to fold up and become broke as a result of such activity either .
Emulators are to many people its the only way they will ever see the games they miss or loved so much so its up to you really? would you feel guilty?

[Jorpho]

I've been wondering how legal roms and emulators actually are. The general idea is that emulators are legal but roms are not, but I remember Sony suing Bleem and Connectix Virtual Game Station (VGS) and Nintendo threating to take legal action against UltraHLE.As I recall, the basis for Sony's suit against Bleem was that they were trying to show that the Bleem developers had reverse-engineered the Playstation BIOS in order to make Bleem, which was a big no-no. I don't think Connectix ever actually got sued; Sony simply bought them out. And UltraHLE was abandoned by its authors the same day it was released. I could be wrong and leave the verification of all this as an exercise for the reader.


But I don't understand.. how you can make your "one legal backup copy" WITHOUT a game copy device? IE I want to backup a NES cart and make my one legal backup copy, but how do I go about legally doing it without a game copy device?Actually, it is quite possible to dump a Nintendo DS cart with just a Nintendo DS and a Wifi access point - provided you re-flash the BIOS entirely or use a flash cart.

[Flack]

I always thought if I had the cart of the game, then I could have a rom of it.

The law (at one time; it may have changed) was that software owners were legally allowed to make a/one backup copy for their own use. This came about back when people would pay hundreds of dollars for programs like Lotus 1-2-3, which originally ran off of a 5 1/4 floppy disk. Obviously, if you paid hundreds of dollars for a program which then had to be manually handled and inserted into your computer every day, it made sense to allow users to make an archival copy and operate from that instead of the original.

This is obviously a much harder sell when dealing with cartridge media because, let's face it, whatever you're backing up your carts to (most likely a floppy disk) is most likely less stable than the original media. In fact I believe there was a lawsuit involving Atari that directly dealt with this and the ruling was that "one backup" only applied to floppy media, not carts.

The law dealing specifically with this noted that the user must make his or her own backup copy. You can't make backup copies for other people, and you can't get backup copies from others. Downloading ROMs would fall under this. If you can't make your own backup copy, legally you are SOL.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) made it illegal to "cirvumvent copyright protection systems" -- which pretty much includes anything video game related.

Before anyone throws out "Abandonware" just know that there's really no such thing. Just because a company closes and no longer sells a product doesn't make it legal to copy it. Just doesn't. Wish it did. Sorry.

Legally speaking, there's almost no way to think that ROMs would or could be legal. That being said, I don't think anyone has been prosecuted or arrested to having ROMs for personal use. Keep 'em off your website and don't sell 'em and I can't imagine you would be worth any legal efforts.

[Icarus Moonsight]

It's true, just keep in mind that the laws protect the profit rather than property. As long as you don't mess with money, no one will care.

[Swamperon]

It's true, just keep in mind that the laws protect the profit rather than property. As long as you don't mess with money, no one will care.

This. I've read of people being arrested, but only when they've being downloading the latest games en masse, and then selling them.

Most companies simply won't care or don't have the time to go after people like us. Also I doubt many of us are downloading the very latest games, but rather obscure games from 10 years ago. It wouldn't be worth the effort.

Also I imagine in some cases, it helps to keep and renew interest in old franchises.

[Richter Belmount]

Everythings illegal especially abandon ware and public domain

[Jorpho]

Everythings illegal especially abandon ware and public domainGood sir, abandonware might be something of an imaginary concept, but "public domain" is well-established, legitimate terminology. The distribution of something in the public domain is most certainly not illegal.

[JohnnyBlaze]

Just remember what my uncle told me one time:

Everything's legal.....as long as you don't get caught.

Then, he got busted for a DUI two weeks later......

[Hep038]

I went to the Atlanta Comicon today there was a guy selling emulator disks with full Roms for 65$. A guy asked me about them and I told him the guy was selling stolen games and he should not buy them. The guy looked at me and said " How do I know he cannot legally sell them"

Moral of the story, people can justify anything. Especially cheap ass people.

[Mangar]

I'm not sure why people give a shit about the "law" so to speak. Unless you are in risk of being arrested, and you clearly are not - All you should care about is your own personal ethics and morals. IE: Do YOU feel that using Roms is wrong? If Yes, Stop. If No, Enjoy!

Reminds me of a discussion I had with someone in the industry some years back. I own roughly every single Pink Floyd CD/Cassette tape ever made. Even the obscure ones. When I moved, some of my CD's were damaged beyond the ability to play. So I went and downloaded some lossless copies for myself, and while I was at it - I also downloaded lossless copies of the albums that I had on cassette tape. The person in question felt it was stealing, illegal, and wrong. My reaction was a simple "I don't give a shit." It's not so much that the person in question was wrong, but rather that if YOU don't think it's wrong - Then you shouldn't have to justify or explain yourself to anyone. Nor ask for moral guidance on a messageboard.

Follow and do what you feel is right. Unless I'm going to end up before a judge at some point, I really couldn't care what some Nintendo/Sony/RIAA/NBC-Universal says about stealing or copyrights. There interest is money and stockholders, not you.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Universally applied, those premises become quite a terrifying slippery slope. I'd advise a reexamination. Maybe I could point out a few options?

Theft, even in the most offending case of rom use, is a bit strong for a few reasons. When I bring the concept of theft to mind, what is most obvious is property being taken or removed. Roms are generated in a non-destructive process. No one is deprived of property no matter how big a "Great ROM Theft Caper" occurs. Basically, theft is the denial of property rights of another (removing their access and use to a specific thing such as a car or a simple cigarette lighter), while claiming property rights as valid for the thief (otherwise, why bother stealing if you do not intend to retain use?). When you "steal" a game by downloading a dump or image you are not taking away the thing or the use of it from another by doing so. That's a large factual gap to bridge to argue classification as theft is equally valid.

Of course, because the newly generated thing IS a copy, there is an ethical issue with selling the copy AS AN ORIGINAL (specifically it's lying, selling a lie is fraud and well, fraud is fraud, not theft-one can walk away from fraud and avoid it but not so much with theft). But even a sale of a copy isn't actually theft when you hold it to the standard of depriving use and access of property. The copied original's owner, even if they are or are not the content creator themselves, still retain their original and use of it. If the buyer of a copy/ROM etc. is fully aware of the fact that it is a copy and no attempt is made to obscure or hide the fact, then there is even less need for concern.

The supposed "Deprived of Monies as Profit" angle of lost/damaged sales revenue from non-existent sales is an extremely weak argument, because if they didn't buy it before the copy was attained, you could never know for sure whether they would actually have bought an original copy. And when they do buy one before a copy is made, who really cares in this case if they copied a backup for themselves? If an argument for a loss of a single sale is very sketchy, then what about the argument for two or more losses? It's impossible for this argument to meet any reasonable burden of proof.

There is only one 100% surefire way to ensure a creation distributed on media will never be copied and distributed bypassing your profit stream, never release the work and keep it to yourself.

Just some ideas, do what you will with them, even nothing if you like.

[kupomogli]

Us: Who gives a shit.
Them: If we catch you with a ROM, we will castrate you.

It's illegal, but yeah. QFT.

[BetaWolf47]

C'mon guys... don't copy that floppy! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up863eQKGUI)

[KingCobra]

A:
If it's Copyrighted? you cannot copy it for "sale or re-disrepute" without permission period. If the Copyright expires and is not re-upped it's free game. *NES Clones anyone?*

B:
If you buy said Copyrighted whatever? Then you may make as many copies as you want for "PERSONAL" usage. You just can't do the above.


The biggest "Grey" area in these sorts of laws is when you "Gift" somebody something. LOL!!!

[Icarus Moonsight]

My second grade teacher told us we absolutely could not go to the bathroom without asking permission and getting a hall pass, but I sure proved her wrong. It was possible, and very probable when such a request is denied.

[j_factor]

Before anyone throws out "Abandonware" just know that there's really no such thing. Just because a company closes and no longer sells a product doesn't make it legal to copy it. Just doesn't. Wish it did. Sorry.

It's technically still illegal, yes. But it's a tort, not a crime. If the copyright owner no longer exists, there's nobody to enforce it.


A:
If it's Copyrighted? you cannot copy it for "sale or re-disrepute" without permission period. If the Copyright expires and is not re-upped it's free game. *NES Clones anyone?*

Copyrights last 70 years (or 70 years past the death of the author). There are no copyright-expired games. The NES clone thing is because of expired patents, not copyrights.

[KingCobra]

It's technically still illegal, yes. But it's a tort, not a crime. If the copyright owner no longer exists, there's nobody to enforce it.



Copyrights last 70 years (or 70 years past the death of the author). There are no copyright-expired games. The NES clone thing is because of expired patents, not copyrights.

right right.. I stand corrected! It's indeed a patent, thought it looks dependent on what kind of patent? Crazy for sure

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_long_does_a_patent_last

[Therealqtip]

Having roms illegal is bullshit, how the hell are you gonna give money to the devs if you can't buy it new? You can't so who cares.

[danny_galaga]

I think you're generally misinterpreting what Nintendo is saying.

They state that people often mistakenly believe that if you own a legitimate commercial copy of a "copyrighted work" that you are entitled to have a "second copy" based on existing copyright laws.

Even though they reference that belief in the middle, they reiterate that this belief is not accurate as it relates to Nintendo games/roms at the end of the paragraph.

Bottom line - everything you need to know about an individual game and your rights as an owner/license holder of a commercial copy can be found on the END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT.

Outside of a game on a generally volatile/unstable magnetic media (cassette, floppy disc) I can't think of any game from the NES era onward that states that is is legal or acceptable for the end user to create a "backup copy" in the EULA.

Essentially by the letter the EULA of almost any/every modern game - any copyrighted game can not be copied or transferred from the commercial media it is sold on, even for the purpose of a "backup".

Of course, whether any company is going to go after a user who is making a single backup copy of a game for personal purposes is very unlikely.

Like so many things to do with copyright, only if it becomes a matter of damaging the profits of the copyright owner does it become problematic.

Start archiving fullsets of roms and hosting them on the web or selling them on eBay and you'll have a much bigger target on your back than the user breaking EULA by making a single backup copy of a game that sits on his/her shelf.

This is the best answer to the question I've read in a long time (",)

[danny_galaga]

right right.. I stand corrected! It's indeed a patent, thought it looks dependent on what kind of patent? Crazy for sure

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_long_does_a_patent_last

Patent is on the hardware. Copyright is on the software. two different things...