What ever happened to HOZER games

[careerbellman]

Hey, HOZER games has dissapeared for a while now, anybody know why? I believe the person running it was named Randy Chritchfield or something like that. I got a lot of really cool homebrew games like Dark Mage, A better Pac-Man, Mondo Pong, etc... And some really cool Hacks off him a couple years ago.
Ive noticed that Atari Age sells lots of the same games he sold they just changed the lable art. I tried to ask them once if there was a connection to them starting to sell the same games he once did, but I got no reply.
Anybody have an answer for me?
Thanks

[autobotracing]

lets just say they are gone to never return

Do a search you will find the thread on atari age about why they are gone

[Buyatari]

Uhh why not just spill the beans here so EVERYONE here can share. Just tell us what happened if you know the whole story.

Adam

[Sniderman]

Uhh why not just spill the beans here so EVERYONE here can share. Just tell us what happened if you know the whole story.

Adam

Because what happened is 12 pages of the most stomach-wrenching sh*t-storm to ever grace the retrogaming hobby, in my opinion. If you want the whole story, read this:
Ta-da. (http://www.atariage.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=17502) If someone doesn't feel like reading it, tough. I'd rather not do a re-cap as 1. it turns my guts, seeing what happened and 2. no one came out smelling like a rose when it ended. Everyone involved - on both sides - acted like asshats. My opinion only here.

This whole scenario is only whispered about because this event really divided the entire community for a while. It's just now scarring over. Bad, bad, ugly badness.

[chadtower]

Bad, bad, ugly badness.

If I ever start a band, that's what I will name them.

[Ed Oscuro]

Whoa, is King Atari in that post actually our Raedon? The avatar and title are exactly the same as what he used a while back.

...anywho

Maybe I don't know the whole story here, but how can any of these guys actually OWN the rights to the original programs that they've hacked? Hacks aren't legal, and you can't claim a hack as your intellectual property. If they're homebrews (seeing a change in terminology near the bottom of the page) that should be OK.

It's just getting worse on page 2...hate to think what it'll be like on page 11 :O

Return of Mario Bros.??? That's copyright infringement, plain and simple. Nobody should be selling that hack, and really nobody should've made it in the first place. What. The hell.

If you want to control how your homebrews are distributed, distribute them with a license, and make people read an EULA type agreement before downloading them. It's that simple.

[chadtower]

Dude, don't dredge it all up again. It's all in the past now. Breathe.

[Ed Oscuro]

This is the first time I've seen it; it apalls me how much people go on about legal issues when they really know nothing about it.

You don't need to tell me what to post or not post, and if anybody needs to "breathe" here, it might well be yourself.

[Sniderman]

This is the first time I've seen it; it apalls me how much people go on about legal issues when they really know nothing about it.

You don't need to tell me what to post or not post, and if anybody needs to "breathe" here, it might well be yourself.

And this is *precisely* the reason why no one brings it up. It's also *precisely* why I hesitated to post the link. Everyone gets all up in arms, arguements ensue, names are tossed about, and it all starts over again.

*sigh* Nothing good came of it back then, and nothing good's gonna come of any conversations from it now. I suggest we let this thread die before this whole thing once again explodes into the sh*tstorm I see happening. Thanks.

[Ed Oscuro]

Yep, that quote shows precisely how much of a poster child for ignorance I am LOL

Thanks for nothing, there. I can understand where you're coming from, but I had to say something about your last post in relation to mine.

[Buyatari]

Well its ALREADY been brought up and now that it has I'm sure people don't want to wade through 11 or 12 pages of mud-slingging for a paragraphs worth of recap.

Tell them you can't discuss it will only make them want to know EVERYTHING.

Now we discuss war ,religion, murder ,politics and more in the Off-topic section yet no one can give us the low down on an argument over some atari games?

<Shhh> it never hapened......ignore it just move along.

Ok well

This is what I gathered after reading the 1st page of mud slinging.

1. Hozer was selling homebrews.
2. Hozer was then selling copies of homebrews against the homebrew writters wishes and not giving them due credit or money.
3. Big debate over who really owned the rights.
4. Activision stepped in and made Hozer close shop over other issues (I'm guessing selling Activision owned games).

Is that what you were afraid to say ?

Adam

[Sniderman]

Afraid, nope. It's just that this goes much deeper, encompassing the Atari Age staff, most of the homebrewers, the Activision legal department, a few ROM sites (believe it or not) and a guy who - though he kept the 2600 fanbase in homebrews for more than a decade - was run out of business due to his own shortsidedness and the rabid pursuit of that same-said fanbase.

Fear's uninvolved in this situation. It's just every. frigging. thing. wrong with the hobby all rolled into one gigantic pissing match and it saddens and angers me. What surfaced from that whole situation?

- the pulling of ALL Activision ROMs from throughout the Internet. Look for 'em. They're gone.
- the alienation of the homebrewers who - for a while - doubted the honesty of their distributors.
- the shutting down of a guy who supplied homebrews and burned copies of hard-to-find games for a minimum price ($11) for 10+ years. He also launched many of the homebrewers in action today.
- and let's not even get into the fact that there are many, many, many folks in our hobby who I take a very dim view of because of their words and actions in this situation.

So, in summary, you pretty much hit it on the head. But it isn't fear, so much as a loathing and disgust for everyone involved. :angry:

[Ed Oscuro]

The only problem here is that it seems the author actually was getting paid, and was just insisting they stopped being sold 'cause he got pissed. Other authors supposedly had their "wishes ignored," though, whatever that's worth.

Bottom line:

Nobody in the whole argument has any damn business hacking games for the Atari with Nintendo's trademarked characters, nobody has any business selling hacked games, and the whole issue is just bad. Even wholly legit homebrews aren't being copyrighted, so they just don't have a say what's done with them. GPL them or something, at least.

I'd agree with Sniderman that this doesn't need to be dredged up.

Also, good post here by Sniderman, some new information, missed it as it was between the time I started writing this one and editing it just now.

[careerbellman]

WOW!!!!!! I had no idea that my question would open a major can of worms. I had honestly never heard the story behind why Hozer had gone. I bought many a game, homebrews, hacks and copies of rare prototypes from them, and was so supprised to find them gone since they seemed to have a great thing going.
Anyway I do get the overall picture and thank you guys for letting me know. It does sound like an unfortunate story. Sorry.
Jim

[chadtower]

Even wholly legit homebrews aren't being copyrighted, so they just don't have a say what's done with them. GPL them or something, at least.

I don't understand what you're trying to say there. The fact that the homebrew code exists at all means that it holds an implied copyright to the author. They ARE copyrighted and therefor the author of a true homebrew holds all rights pertaining to the use, distrubution, derivation, display, and copy of that game.

[Sniderman]

Even wholly legit homebrews aren't being copyrighted, so they just don't have a say what's done with them. GPL them or something, at least.

I don't understand what you're trying to say there. The fact that the homebrew code exists at all means that it holds an implied copyright to the author. They ARE copyrighted and therefor the author of a true homebrew holds all rights pertaining to the use, distrubution, derivation, display, and copy of that game.
And before anyone replies to debate/argue/belabor the point, allow me to repost this:\

And this is *precisely* the reason why no one brings it up. It's also *precisely* why I hesitated to post the link. Everyone gets all up in arms, arguements ensue, names are tossed about, and it all starts over again.

*sigh* Nothing good came of it back then, and nothing good's gonna come of any conversations from it now. I suggest we let this thread die before this whole thing once again explodes into the sh*tstorm I see happening. Thanks.

These Hozer threads are nothing but trouble, dammit.

[Ed Oscuro]

I don't understand what you're trying to say there. The fact that the homebrew code exists at all means that it holds an implied copyright to the author. They ARE copyrighted and therefor the author of a true homebrew holds all rights pertaining to the use, distrubution, derivation, display, and copy of that game.

You have no clue what's going on. I've been around copyrights all my life, and Thomas Jentzsch himself said that they were made "Freely available" and when I downloaded two of his ROMs (AsteroidsDCPlus_Hack.zip and CatTrax.zip, a conversion) there was no copyright notice. I'll come back to that "freely available" in a minute.

Copyright is not automatically won. When you save a new piece of software to disk or a floppy you automatically gain copyright these days, but there are some reasons why you might not qualify. Let's look over a few reasons why he doesn't qualify for copyright ownership on various pieces of "his" software:


© Copyright 1993-1998 Oppedahl & Larson LLP.

First, a bit of terminology. The question whether a work is "copyrighted" might, depending on who is talking, mean either of two things. Someone who says a work "is copyrighted" might be trying to say that a copyright registration on the work has been obtained from the U.S. Copyright Office. A different person who says a work "is copyrighted" might mean that the work is protected by the U.S. copyright laws. Lots of people say the former, but it is sloppy usage. The latter is more correct.

In the United States, an original work becomes protected by the copyright laws from the moment it is "fixed in a tangible medium". This provides several obvious examples of ways that a work could fail to be protected by the copyright laws: the work might contain no originality, or it might not be fixed in a tangible medium. Yet another example is if a work has gone into the public domain, perhaps because the term of copyright has expired or because the owner has dedicated the work to the public prior to the expiry of the copyright term.

Click Here for the rest of that page. (http://www.patents.com/copyrigh.htm#software)

a.) Hacks aren't his property--the very act of distributing a ROM is illegal, though companies might ignore it (or don't feel they have the time to pursue it). Hacking a ROM is no more legal.

b.) Software, like all other material, must contain "some degree of originality" and I don't think converting a ROM to NTSC qualifies.

Now his "original" software (Jammed, Star Fire, Thrust, Thrust+ DC Edition and Thrust+ Platinum (nevermind that Thrust is a probably unauthorized port of a C64 game which he did NOT program) doesn't come with any sort of copyright notice, unless it's actually in the ROM itself. Jammed is another conversion, and I don't know about Star Fire. I could've missed a couple titles as well, but the point is that it helps to have a copyright notice.

3.) There's no limits given to distribution--if I wrote that everybody could copy a book I wrote, that's the way it will be forevermore, even if I have copyright. He set it loose on the Internet, and while he could argue (if indeed he had some say over these copyrights) that he hadn't authorized the sale of these binaries in hard form, he'd still be wrong because he has "has dedicated the work to the public prior to the expiry of the copyright term." There might be a question as to whether he's explicitly done that (might have to make an explicit statement which I think has been done) and whether he can now pull the copyrights is also in question, but I think the answer is a resounding No.

OOPS!

Not to put Thomas Jentzsch's hard work down, but there's a reason he hasn't brought threats of any legal action (besides the fact that it would cost him too much money for no reason). He has no grounds to charge anybody on. I'm not sure I agree with him on "moralic" [sic] grounds, either. It looks like he got pissed and decided to try and bring up some false rights to cause some pain to the other guy.

[Lost Monkey]

Not to put Thomas Jentzsch's hard work down, but there's a reason he hasn't brought threats of any legal action (besides the fact that it would cost him too much money for no reason). He has no grounds to charge anybody on. I'm not sure I agree with him on "moralic" [sic] grounds, either. It looks like he got pissed and decided to try and bring up some false rights to cause some pain to the other guy.

And if you paid attention to the AA thread, you would see that Thomas was not interested in bringing in lawyers for the sake of the hobby... The argument was (from Thomas' standpoint) was NEVER about a legality, but about morality IE respecting the wishes of another HOBBIEST.

His hope in posting the story originally was that Randy might receive enough peer pressure to get him to stop... IE Randy might stop trying to "bite the hand" so to speak...

He was still selling other unauthorized homebrews as of this past summer.

[Ed Oscuro]

Yes, I read the article. Read the last part of my statement again: I'm just bringing this up so everybody has an idea that when you try to claim copyright protections on a software piece that wasn't originally yours, that you didn't put a notice on, and argued shouldn't be used by a certain person later on, you have really very little case at all. Compounding this is the fact that Hozer could've made the argument that since he believed his use of the material was far, and his business revolved around the use of this material, that this quite blatant selective enforcement of copyright laws is depriving him of software upon which he is dependent (didn't mention that earlier myself).

Anybody who distributes software over the 'net should know this. I know it's not an argument against Thomas himself but rather an argument for all the idiots and self-made copyright gurus out there who claim he has some sort of a legal case.

Is a "Hobbiest" somewhat like "the most Hobbit?" How about "The one who hobbles the most?" While you have avoided misspelling "moralistic," you've got "hobbyist" wrong.

[Lost Monkey]

Yes, I read the article. Read the last part of my statement again: I'm just bringing this up so everybody has an idea that when you try to claim copyright protections on a software piece that wasn't originally yours, that you didn't put a notice on, and argued shouldn't be used by a certain person later on, you have really very little case at all. Compounding this is the fact that Hozer could've made the argument that since he believed his use of the material was far, and his business revolved around the use of this material, that this quite blatant selective enforcement of copyright laws is depriving him of software upon which he is dependent (didn't mention that earlier myself).

And thus it does not belong in this thread, because there was no mention of a LEGAL or COPYRIGHT claim. It was simply an issue of trust among peers.



Is a "Hobbiest" somewhat like "the most Hobbit?" How about "The one who hobbles the most?" While you have avoided misspelling "moralistic," you've got "hobbyist" wrong.

Okay.. I see where this is going... :roll:

If my German was as good as Thomas' English, I would quite proud...

[Ed Oscuro]

If you think that ignorance is bliss, more power to you.

Oh, and I agree that the second part is a cheap shot. After all, not all of us native English speakers can write as well as the Germans can ;)

(Yes, of course it was just a common mistake when writing quickly, I just feel like prodding you some more ;)

[Sniderman]

Why did I even bother. NOW DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHY NO ONE EVER WANTS TO TALK ABOUT THIS? BECAUSE THE SIDES GET DRAWN AND THE DEBATES CONTINUE AFRESH.

If you want to discuss this any fiurther, I suggest you take it to AA where it all happened. I'm sure the fine folks there would LOVE to relive this anew and would be thrilled with any new insights anyone would care to share. :roll:

[Lost Monkey]

If you think that ignorance is bliss, more power to you.



You'll have to explain to me what you mean by this quote...

[Ed Oscuro]

If you want to discuss this any fiurther, I suggest you take it to AA where it all happened. I'm sure the fine folks there would LOVE to relive this anew and would be thrilled with any new insights anyone would care to share. :roll:

All I've done is argue a simple point that nobody has a reason to be offended with. I've stated FACTS for the most part. A good rule of thumb for Forums is if you don't like a topic, go elsewhere and stop bitching about it. It's not as if I've hijacked the thread from it's original intent, either.

@ Lost Monkey:

Insults aside, I think I've been very clear. This mess would've been avoided if some sort of a usage agreement note (I hesitate to say copyright for reasons I've already mentioned) was included in the distributable and if Thomas insisted that a short amount of text was included whereever it was posted to be downloaded.

Yes, I agree that Hozer's actions as presented by Thomas don't appear moral, but I'm not going to start speculating on things I know nothing about.

[chadtower]

Okay, so what I'm missing is why a completely original piece of work, a NEW game (not a hack or conversion or anything else), does not give him right of copyright. Are you saying it's because he made the rom available on the net? Shouldn't that still give him the right to limit who else distributes it and how?

I didn't say in my post that this would apply to his hacks or his conversions... but I would think it would apply to his new works.

EDIT: BTW, I don't see this as an argument. We're discussing copyrights. I honestly don't care who was jerky to who over a year ago, I just want to know how copyright law applies to homebrews.

[Lost Monkey]

@ Lost Monkey:

Insults aside, I think I've been very clear. This mess would've been avoided if some sort of a usage agreement note (I hesitate to say copyright for reasons I've already mentioned) was included in the distributable and if Thomas insisted that a short amount of text was included whereever it was posted to be downloaded.

Yes, I agree that Hozer's actions as presented by Thomas don't appear moral, but I'm not going to start speculating on things I know nothing about.

I agree that the legal side of things was left open for exploitation, I have never argued against that... however, there is no way for that to have been avoided. Thomas cannot claim any legal rights to his Asteroids hack or any of the other hacks he has produced. Any "user agreement" would be nullified by the fact that Thomas had no right to offer such an agreement.

Instead, trust is the thing that keeps other "hobbyists" ;) from producing and selling these hacks. (Well.. trust and the fact that returns are limited... )

The homebrew games that have been produced are another matter entirely.

[Ed Oscuro]

Ah, this is what I wanted to talk about!

First off, I checked a number of the games listed at AtariAge under his name; only Space Age might be original (and only 'cause I didn't check). Everything else I've named above was either a port, hack, or conversion (port). He's not getting copyright on those even if the older software's copyright is expired simply because it's not original work.

Second, there's a little bit of room for him to argue that his reputation is being damaged, but it would've helped immensely if he had a copyright notice/terms of use in there. Now it's possible to enforce copyright even after you've allowed something to be downloaded freely, but once you say those magic words "I free this software to the public domain" you're done. I personally think he essentially did just that.

What it comes down to is that he needs, in any new works, to specifically write down how it should be used or distributed and to include this information in a text file included with the distributable. The practice of claiming a copyright after neglecting to do so is highly disagreeable.

[chadtower]

What it comes down to is that he needs, in any new works, to specifically write down how it should be used or distributed and to include this information in a text file included with the distributable. The practice of claiming a copyright after neglecting to do so is highly disagreeable.

The main reason I'm getting a good comprehension now is because I may very well homebrew some games myself. I don't want to go tossing the rights aside in some ignorant act of buffonery. :)

Say one makes a true homebrew and includes a terms of use that states that it may be distributed in electronic form only, provided that it is done so freely and not for profit? Would that allow protection from someone else producing carts and selling them? If I made a game, I wouldn't mind people playing a rom image, but I sure wouldn't want people producing carts without my permission and selling them.

[Ed Oscuro]

That sounds absolutely fine, and is what I'd do.

You don't have to register with the copyright office to claim a copyright--a registered copyright holder will enjoy the ability to block unathorized distribution and "performance" of their work, but you get a form of copyright right away when you save that file to disk. If you're really concerned, you can pay $30 to have the copyright registered. Take a look around this page if you feel unsure about anything:

http://www.patents.com/copyrigh.htm

[chadtower]

That's what I said in the first place! Where is the discrepancy with Thomasz? Is it because he doesn't actually have any original work? I am unfamiliar with his body of work.

[Ed Oscuro]

Most people think that good luck and working in a community of friends is enough...the ROM hackers I know don't always add a text file to their files, which I think is just because this is supposed to be for fun. Add money and whatever other bad feelings worked into this and you're set to have trouble.

[slapdash]

lets just say they are gone to never return

Actually, only the web page is gone.

[ventrra]

ROM hacking is not nessecerily illegal.

the justices clearly stated that parody can be exempted from copyright law.
The Supreme court ruled, basically, that if an item (often a song, but has been extended to other things) is changed for the intent of parody (as in most of my own hacks) it is exempted from copyright law.

By definition, a parody imitates an original work for comic effect or ridicule.
While this hasn't been ruled on for ROMS per se, it has been for things like songs, signs, tv ads, and many other things.

[Buyatari]

Well Sniderman, its like watching a car crash from another car when there just isn't much you can do to stop it.

Its a shame when this type of event happens but it should never be hidden from those who want to know what really happened. Esp if there any budding homebrews out there who haven't yet heard of this case. Anyone who came out of that mess not smelling like a rose has only themself to blame.

The original question was WHAT happened. It was NOT was it morally right, or was it legal, or did everyone act properly, and that original question has been answered. That all MOST people need to know.

Afterwords, if a couple of guys want to beat the dead horse and discuss what has already been beat to death in those 12 pages I say let them go at it till they tire themselves out or as you stated. Go add another 12 pages to the AA website.

Adam

[autobotracing]

WOW!!!!!! I had no idea that my question would open a major can of worms.


I asked the same question months ago and opended the can .Thats why I said do Asearch because this always happens everytime some one asks this question .

[punkoffgirl]

Wasn't there another problem besides the one with Thomas?

[Ed Oscuro]

ROM hacking is not nessecerily illegal.

the justices clearly stated that parody can be exempted from copyright law.
The Supreme court ruled, basically, that if an item (often a song, but has been extended to other things) is changed for the intent of parody (as in most of my own hacks) it is exempted from copyright law.

That's skirting the issue of whether or not it's okay to redistribute the original ROM's content in the first place! While I doubt anybody's going to mind your work (I'm not opposed to it and I think anybody who is doesn't have any business making decisions that affect the classicgaming industry) a good question to ask yourself would be

"If I took Zelda: Wind Waker and hacked that with the intent of parody, would Nintendo mind?"

The quote you gave above doesn't apply to items that are essentially copied directly from the original work. While you aren't necessarily wrong it is dangerous territory. Two examples from real life:

1.) Somebody takes a Dr. Seuss work and keeps the sentence structure and title of the original but changes both to tell a different story (in this case some social/political parody)

2.) Somebody, say a rapper, takes an original song and keeps the same notes, etc. in the original but changes it so their own vocals replace that of the original.

Number 1. may have won (it's been a while since I looked at it,) and 2. lost.

You may win, but going to court is no fun.

The only reason I don't hear of ROM hackers being sued is that game companies don't feel it's a sufficient threat to their business, and in your case (do you work on Atari stuff?) the distance of time, ownership of some game code by their authors, and other factors make a prosecution even more likely.

[kevincure]

Not related to the ROM case, but here's some quick legal stuff on copyright:
Parody is protected, but I don't think most ROMs are going to qualify. I'll hafta check the law textbooks, but the general rule I've heard is that if the parody is merely using the original content, slightly altered, it's still infringing on copyright. For instance, remaking Gone with the Wind to satire the racism (as in "The Wind Done Gone" a few years back) is fine. Making a comedy where the original Star Wars is dubbed over with a new voice track making fun of the original lines is grey area (actually, I can't think of a court, if Lucasfilm were to sue, siding with the comedians here). Remaking a song, as mentioned above, with different lyrics but the same beat (common in rap sampling, for instance) is almost certainly a copyright violation (should it be? I don't think so, but that's the law). Replacing characters in a ROM hack seems to be closer to the last than to the first.

As has also been noted, this seems to be much more about honor and trust than laws.

[ventrra]

For instance, remaking Gone with the Wind to satire the racism (as in "The Wind Done Gone" a few years back) is fine. Making a comedy where the original Star Wars is dubbed over with a new voice track making fun of the original lines is grey area (actually, I can't think of a court, if Lucasfilm were to sue, siding with the comedians here).
Actually, there has been an instance or two of exactly this happening. A number of years ago, there was a case where some people had dubbed Raiders of the Lost Ark with the soundtrack to Bugs Bunny cartoons and vice versa. There was as bit of a stir about it, but I don't recall (although, I could be wrong) anone getting sued over it.


That's skirting the issue of whether or not it's okay to redistribute the original ROM's content in the first place!
I wouldn't even try to takcle that issue. Things get complicated enough as it is! :D

The quote you gave above doesn't apply to items that are essentially copied directly from the original work. While you aren't necessarily wrong it is dangerous territory.
Ever here Al Yankovic's Money for Nothing/Beverly Hillbillies parody? That's Dire Streight's actual music playing there from Money For Nothin'! I don't doubt that it's dangerous territory, that's why there have been so many lawsuits involved in settling the decision. However my statement merely amounts to: I believe that my efforts amount to basically the same thing (outside of the legality of the original ROM issue). Until a relevent court case actually appears, I'd honestly say that it's basically "up-in-the-air".[/quote]

[ddockery]

Weird Al doesn't apply here, he actually gets permission from the artists involved BEFORE doing the parodies. I've heard him complain that Prince wouldn't allow him before, so he didn't do that particular song. Some have changed their minds afterwards and there have been some nasty arguments about it, but I believe he always avoided legal action, probably due to contracts.

[ventrra]

Weird Al doesn't apply here, he actually gets permission from the artists involved BEFORE doing the parodies. I've heard him complain that Prince wouldn't allow him before, so he didn't do that particular song. Some have changed their minds afterwards and there have been some nasty arguments about it, but I believe he always avoided legal action, probably due to contracts.
Actually, he does apply here. 1) He didn't always get permission, can we say Coolio? 2) According the the Supreme Court ruling, artists like Al didn't need to get permission in the first place. In essence, the courts felt that requiring permission to parody was abridging the first amendment.

[Ed Oscuro]

I don't doubt that it's dangerous territory, that's why there have been so many lawsuits involved in settling the decision. However my statement merely amounts to: I believe that my efforts amount to basically the same thing (outside of the legality of the original ROM issue). Until a relevent court case actually appears, I'd honestly say that it's basically "up-in-the-air".[/quote]

Yes, that's exactly what I'm driving at. I hope to goodness that none of our ROM hackers have to find out the hard way. Still, I find it harder to believe that "parody" is an argument here. As was noted earlier, Wierd Al has avoided legal action in the past various ways--if he ever had to go to court it would probably be a very dark day for Wierd Al fans, nevermind his wallet.

[ventrra]

Yes, that's exactly what I'm driving at. I hope to goodness that none of our ROM hackers have to find out the hard way. Still, I find it harder to believe that "parody" is an argument here. As was noted earlier, Wierd Al has avoided legal action in the past various ways--if he ever had to go to court it would probably be a very dark day for Wierd Al fans, nevermind his wallet.
There already was a lawsuit to those ends. In this case, involving 2 Live Crew: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1292.ZS.html In the end, the Supreme Court overturned an earlier ruling that forbade 2 Live Crew's parody.
The "wallet" problem is a likely problem, though. The courts have time and again ruled in favor of parodiosts, whether they had asked prior permission or not. The real questions involved are: 1) Is medium a factor? (i.e. Does the law cover all types of parody equally?) and 2) Can the person being sued over the issue afford to take the case to court?

[Ed Oscuro]

I don't see how medium is an issue, especially when certain hacked ROMs are being burned to cart and thus indistinguisable in terms of use from the original. Rather, I'd see damages to the copyright holder (I think the answer in almost every case of ROM hackers to be zero, though Hozer was selling games which somebody theoretically could have profited from...fat chance really) and I agree with what you say, that of the plaintiff's ability to pay damages. The only thing keeping damages and the plaintiff's ability to pay damages from being directly correlated is the fact that somebody suing would likely argue that it's hurt their brand name, and doesn't even have to be related to a sales figure (perhaps they argue that somebody, say Hozer, hurts the possibility of a future direct-to-TV console selling well).

I see where you're coming from with the use of music, but I think that the "used too much of the original" factor tends to hurt the ROM hacker's case...but the use of the parody argument doesn't sound like a bad bet.

[Ed Oscuro]

No "presumption" or inference of market harm that might find support in Sony is applicable to a case involving something beyond mere duplication for commercial purposes.

Ah, there we go. This seems to be directly applicable to ROM hackers because, unlike Sony (the case used as a basis for the decision overturned here,) the duplication and reuse isn't meant solely for commercial gain (even, arguably, in Hozer's case). There is the parody aspect but more importantly the ROM hackers aren't working for mere profit, and almost certainly haven't caused market harm (in my view...at best, this "harm" is barely appreciable).

I think that showing how the ROM hacker group interacts with the classic gaming community (which supports such things as direct-to-TV consoles and ports of old games to newer game consoles, i.e. Williams Arcade Classics) and supports it is, in of itself, a compelling argument that no harm is being done.

[ventrra]

No "presumption" or inference of market harm that might find support in Sony is applicable to a case involving something beyond mere duplication for commercial purposes.

Ah, there we go. This seems to be directly applicable to ROM hackers because, unlike Sony (the case used as a basis for the decision overturned here,) the duplication and reuse isn't meant solely for commercial gain (even, arguably, in Hozer's case). There is the parody aspect but more importantly the ROM hackers aren't working for mere profit, and almost certainly haven't caused market harm (in my view...at best, this "harm" is barely appreciable).

I think that showing how the ROM hacker group interacts with the classic gaming community (which supports such things as direct-to-TV consoles and ports of old games to newer game consoles, i.e. Williams Arcade Classics) and supports it is, in of itself, a compelling argument that no harm is being done.
That's an interesting point and would certainly be my position if I ever had to go to court over it.
Another interesting note is that many of the parody lawsuits aren't even being heard by the court these days. Mostly, it seems that the judges give a quick look over the materials and, if it seems to be a parody to them, throw the case out (i.e.: http://www.post-gazette.com/localnews/20030313bigdogrp5.asp )

[chadtower]

What has been mentioned briefly here but is extremely important has to do with the amount of the original being used. You are only allowed a certain % of the original before the copyrights apply. A music sample, for instance, can be allowed without permission and without royalty payment if it falls below a small threshhold of % of the original. That's how most musicians that sample get away with it. Once it goes over that %, then you get into copyright rules and royalties.

This applies to ROM hacking because in essence you're using nearly 100% of the original. You're only changing a bit of graphics here and maybe some sound there. You're not borrowing from someone else's work, you're using it in its entirety and that's not anywhere near the same as a music sample. This is the portion of the law that allows things like newscasts to show sport event clips and event highlights without always asking permission. They use such a tiny % of the original (think 4 seconds of a 3 hour broadcast) that copyright does not apply there.

Now, I'm not saying that's a perfect explanation, but that's what I remember from Music Industry class in college...

[Ed Oscuro]

What has been mentioned briefly here but is extremely important has to do with the amount of the original being used. You are only allowed a certain % of the original before the copyrights apply. A music sample, for instance, can be allowed without permission and without royalty payment if it falls below a small threshhold of % of the original. That's how most musicians that sample get away with it. Once it goes over that %, then you get into copyright rules and royalties.

That's a fancy way to waste a paragraph. Sorry Chad, but there is no percentage rule, threshold (one h) or not. The rule instead is whether they used "too much" of the original, and of course other considerations come into play that make the whole issue rather complicated.

I hate it when people try to sum up an argument by just doing a poor job of copying one single aspect of the conversation, I really do.

[chadtower]

Wow, dude. I'm trying to add in what I think my understanding is and you just out and insult me. And they call ME bad around here. I'm done trying to talk with you.

[Ed Oscuro]

I was actually rather toned down that time.

I won't go on like a child even though I'd like to, but rather let me put it in diplomatic terms:

It would be better for you to refrain from posting information which isn't correct (in this case, trying to oversimplify the issue) in this case. Copyright isn't as simple as people think, and your information really isn't helpfu. Really and truly. Sorry, but that's how it is.

[Sniderman]

heh....Now that this conversation has turned bitter - as they always do - shall we end this long-winded/meaningless conversation over an event one-year old and best forgotten, or shall I break out some fresh clubs for the deceased mare I see before me?

[Ed Oscuro]

While I would argue that we've been arguing the legal aspect and not beating a dead horse at all, I think that closing this might be a good idea. We really don't need to let everybody have the chance to confuse the issue with their opinions on the law.

[Arcade Antics]

Before we lock this one, I'd just like to chime in on the issue of Weird Al. :)

1. "Amish Paradise" - Coolio did give permission. He has received several (big) checks from the sales of Al's song and has had no problem cashing them. And may I please point out that Coolio's song "Gangsta Paradise" is a blatant, shameless ripoff of Stevie Wonder's "Pasttime Paradise"? Don't belive me? Buy the album "Songs in the Key of Life." (great album by the way.)

2. The Beverly Hillbillies Theme Song/Money For Nothing sounds so much like "Money For Nothing" because Mark Knopfler asked Al if he could play on Al's version. Al, of course, said yes.

- "A Close Personal Friend of Al"

:)

[ventrra]

Before we lock this one, I'd just like to chime in on the issue of Weird Al. :)

1. "Amish Paradise" - Coolio did give permission. He has received several (big) checks from the sales of Al's song and has had no problem cashing them.
Funny, because my info on the matter of Coolio came streight out of Al's mouth on the VH1 special about him. In that special (Behind the Music, in fact) he stated that his group had asked for permission and Al had thought that he had gotten it, but didn't. Also included was Coolio's statment at the music awards saying that Al hadn't gotten permission (and Coolio had in fact said "no") and there was nothing that he (Coolio) could do about it.

[Sniderman]

It's simple gang, Al's "people" asked Coolio's "people" if Al could do the parody. Coolio's people said "OK" without consulting Coolio. By the time Coolio discovered what happened, the recording was done and the release was imminent. Since Coolio was still going to compensated for the permissison, he just decided not to make an issue of it - though he was pissed and grumbled as such at every opportunity - the Grammy award ceremony being one of those times. If he was really pissed off, he could have easily slapped down a C&D order or sued or any number of things. It was simply a bit of micommunication.

Plus, it wouldn't have helped Coolio's gangsta street cred to say he OK'ed and enjoyed anything done by Al. It'd be like Coolio saying he admired the song stylings of Vanilla Ice.

[Arcade Antics]

It's simple gang, Al's "people" asked Coolio's "people" if Al could do the parody. Coolio's people said "OK" without consulting Coolio. By the time Coolio discovered what happened, the recording was done and the release was imminent. Since Coolio was still going to compensated for the permissison, he just decided not to make an issue of it - though he was pissed and grumbled as such at every opportunity - the Grammy award ceremony being one of those times. If he was really pissed off, he could have easily slapped down a C&D order or sued or any number of things. It was simply a bit of micommunication.

Plus, it wouldn't have helped Coolio's gangsta street cred to say he OK'ed and enjoyed anything done by Al. It'd be like Coolio saying he admired the song stylings of Vanilla Ice.

Exactly. :)

But I'm still :angry: about Coolio shamelessly ripping off Stevie Wonder and then pretending like he has any business being angry with Al. Chutzpah to the Nth degree.

[Achika]

Ed~

I think what CT was getting at was "fair use". You've heard of it I assume?

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

[chadtower]

From the url Achika pasted:


(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and



That's exactly what I was getting at in my "haven't thought about it in 5 years" kind of way.

[ventrra]

As to the third factor, the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work, the Court indicated that a parody presents a unique difficulty when evaluating the amount of copying because the success of a parody depends upon its use of the original work while its "art lies in the tension between a known original and its parodic twin." The Court then reverted to the "conjure up" test that would deny a finding of fair use under this factor only when the parodist "has appropriated a greater amount of the original work than is necessary to 'recall or conjure up' the object of the [parody]." Traditionally the third factor weighs against an infringer when the heart of the original work has been copied, but it is the heart of the original that "most readily conjures up the song for the parody, and it is the heart at which parody takes aim." The question for the Court then became how much further could the parodist go in copying the original once the heart of the original was used. The Court, as did the trial court, believed that 2 Live Crew did not use any more lyrics than were necessary from Oh, Pretty Woman and therefore ruled that the third factor favored 2 Live Crew's fair use defense, but since the Court had already remanded the case on the fourth factor it then also decided to remand on the question of whether the quantity of copying was excessive or not.
By definition, a perody MUST contain a large portion of an original work in a sense. (I.e.: If Al Yankovic had done his parody of Beat It with entirely different music or only a small amount of the music, it wouldn't be a parody of the original, it would more sound like the sort of stuff that They Might Be Giants performs. Original, but very strange.)

[Ed Oscuro]

Ed~

I think what CT was getting at was "fair use". You've heard of it I assume?

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

If you can say he was "getting at it" then you could say falling down the stairs is "getting around." Yes, that's terribly harsh (and of course I mean it jokingly) but I'm dead serious that we don't need people dredging up memories of classes past in this conversation.

It's too bad that Chad couldn't take some criticism, but his explanation of Fair use wasn't terribly effective or correct...in other words, a form of misinformation :/

It's terribly technical of me, but I think that when you start saying "a % of the original" people start thinking there's a limit.

How do you suppose that stupid "You MUST delete this ROM after 24 hours!!!" rule developed, anyhow? It's not the people like Chadtower who do it...it's the people who read something that's not completely clear and run with it who do the damage.

[careerbellman]

Gyys, guys, guys, mellow out. When I asked the question of what happened to Hozer Games thats all I wanted to know. Now the topic has moved to Wierd Al?
I must say Im sorry to see Hozer go. If he was selling homebrews that other people made and not giving them any money or the authors didnt want him to sell them then he shouldnt have. Period. I think hacks too should be dealt with the same manner. this is not million dollar record sales, this is outdated video games that 99.9 percent of the American people could care less about
Hozer is gone, and for better or worse lets move along and keep the scene positive and fun. LETS NOT TURN IT INTO HOW BASEBALL CARD COLLECTING HAS BECOME!!!!
Just my thoughts.
jim