Do all systems become public domain 20 years later? [Archive]

View Full Version : Do all systems become public domain 20 years later?

Anthony1

10-31-2005, 02:00 AM

This GameCrazy employee was talking about the Generation NEX or whatever that system is called, and he said that all systems become public domain 20 years after release. Is this true?

Then why hasn't anybody made a 2600 clone where you can actually plug 2600 carts into and play them?

What about when the Genesis and TG-16 hit 20 years old. Will we see new versions of those by miscelaneous companies?

Somebody explain this thing to me, cause I'm not sure I understand how this works.

Trebuken

10-31-2005, 02:07 AM

No. I believe the copyrights last at least 50 years. Many games for older systems have been released to the public domain though. Vectrex I think, and maybe Astrocade and Arcadia. The roms business would be much less secretive if they were public domain.

Trebuken

JJNova

10-31-2005, 02:12 AM

Haven't the Copyrights for Old Games Expired?

U.S. copyright laws state that copyrights owned by corporations are valid for 75 years from the date of first publication. Because video games have been around for less than three decades, the copyrights of all video games will not expire for many decades to come.

Under recent changes in the laws, in the United States patents are now granted for a term of 20 years from the date of application (14 years for design patents). Different rules apply for patents covered by applications filed before June 8, 1995. Patents may be extended only by a special act of Congress (except for certain pharmaceutical patents).

Unlike copyrights or patents, trademark registration rights can last indefinitely if the owner continues to use the mark to identify goods or services.

NE146

10-31-2005, 02:14 AM

Then why hasn't anybody made a 2600 clone where you can actually plug 2600 carts into and play them?

...Well the Flashback 2 is sort of that. :)

Haoie

10-31-2005, 02:18 AM

It wouldn't be too worthwhile for any firm to enforce their rights on an, well, ancient piece of tech by then, would it?

Xizer

10-31-2005, 02:20 AM

Why on Earth can NES clone units be made? Did Nintendo do sloppy copyrighting or what? I would like a full story.

Ed Oscuro

10-31-2005, 03:30 AM

Unlike copyrights or patents, trademark registration rights can last indefinitely if the owner continues to use the mark to identify goods or services.
In other words, you'll have to make sure you identify the trademarked name of Nintendo, or perhaps Mario (I'm sure he is, besides you can trademark his image, i.e. Lon Chaney's family has/had trademarked his image), if you bring up any trademarked name...you would very likely be restricted from using the likeness, though.

As for the whole copyrighted work of Super Mario Brothers, well, that'll be public domain 75 years after release. Most of us will live to see that day.

It wouldn't be too worthwhile for any firm to enforce their rights on an, well, ancient piece of tech by then, would it?
If you can make money off it (NES Classics series), it's worth enforcing whatever you can.

Why on Earth can NES clone units be made? Did Nintendo do sloppy copyrighting or what? I would like a full story.
Nobody has violated patents in creating the NEX; for one, the patents have expired. If you aren't using any Nintendo code or parts, you aren't violating copyrighted materials, either.

smork

10-31-2005, 04:41 AM

Remember, 2600 clones were quite popular at the height of the 2600 era. My 2600 was a Sears Tele-Arcade. The Colecovision played 2600 carts via an adaptor. This wasn't due to any sloppy lawyering on Atari's part (look at their lawsuit histroy at the same time), it's because they used non-patentable, off the shelf parts so there was no copyright to violate.

Nobody makes clone 2600 machines now 'coz there's a ton of 2600;'s out there that nobody wants. If you could make money at it, somebody would.

Not sure about Nintendo, but I imagine it's a similar situation with the NES.

Griking

10-31-2005, 09:23 AM

All these responses and yet I'm still confused. :embarrassed:

Here's what I think I know.

The Atari Flashback was actually released by Atari so it's not a good example of someone else making a compatible machine and testing copyright laws.

The Arari 2600 clones of the day don't really count because I thought I remember hearing once that Atari never copyrighted the hardware for some reason. I may be wrong about this.

What I don't know;

Why is it ok to release a legal NES clone after 20 years while the rights to Super Mario are protected for 75 years? Is the copyright protection longer for software than it is for hardware?

chrisbid

10-31-2005, 09:28 AM

you are confusing patents and copyrights. copyrights are for iintellectual properties like books, music, films, and software. Patents are for physical inventions and processes. The line is a bit more blurred with computers, but just think hardware=patent and software=copyright.

And while the line from the generation Nex people is the patents on the NES have expired (which is most likely true... im not going to look them up), but the NES chipset was reverse engineered years ago and duplicated without the original setup. It has always been legal to sell NES clones (without software, which many pirate consoles have), but there hasn't been much of a market until just the past few years.

so to answer the actual question in the title of this thread, No. Public Domain refers to expired copyrights, not expired patents.

But yes, patents expire much quicker than copyrights.

But then again, the issue is moot as the gen nex machine does not use the original NES design scheme, it uses a clone design that does not break patent law.

and before this point is argued, explain the non-sega TV games units that play genesis games. EA Sports, Street Fighter II, and Mortal Kombat all use cloned Genesis sets, and sega does not see any money from the sale of these units (again, highly unlikely,as i cant confirm it 100 percent)

Ed Oscuro

10-31-2005, 09:56 AM

The Arari 2600 clones of the day don't really count because I thought I remember hearing once that Atari never protected their copyrighted the hardware for some reason.
They couldn't - it wasn't for lack of trying. I recall that some lawsuits were brought or threatened against companies selling adapters (for example), but it was ruled that they couldn't do this.

Remember Bleem! ? More legal than you'd think; Sony just kept hammering them with lawsuits (this is what I understand, it's always possible Bleem! used some code, but I don't think they did) until they folded. Apple Corp., on the other hand, didn't take action against a company that for many years was trying to legally produce software that emulated Mac OS 9 (I believe) - and by "legally" I mean that they were trying to produce software without reverse engineering, which would've been easy but illegal.

The reason, as far as I know, that reverse engineering is illegal is that you're breaking your user agreement. There's nothing illegal about simply sticking game cartridges into the NES that you've done things to and watching the results (you've got your Fair Use protections as a user), but when you dump the ROMs and start searching through code you're breaking that agreement.

Basically, it seems that if you develop a system that's compatible with somebody else's proprietary software, you will get in trouble if you reverse-engineered their system or use their proprietary, copyrighted materials in the development of your part of the system.

You shouldn't be prosecutable if you develop a game cartridge, say, that works on their system but don't pay their license - the only catch is that for it to legally work you'd have to have figured out the system without actually hacking into the system and looking at the parts that make it run. The way, then, seems to be that you'd need to do a lot of trial-and-error work.

Why is it ok to release a legal NES clone after 20 years while the rights to Super Mario are protected for 75 years? Is the copyright protection longer for software than it is for hardware?
It was OK to release a legal NES clone - built the way I mention above - years ago, if you could get the judge to rule correctly. Mario is different; he's not a patent, but a trademark, and Nintendo can keep rights to him indefinitely, as other companies have their trademarks (for example, Kellogg's with Cornelius the Rooster, who's been around for over 75 years, I'm quite sure). Nintendo can always keep their characters trademarked. SMB, the game, is subject to the terms other copyrighted works are.

This 75 year term is interesting; I honestly hadn't heard of terms being applied differently to corporations than individuals (I'm no patent/trademark or copyright expert; I'm just trying to translate things a bit).

GameSlaveGaz

10-31-2005, 02:53 PM

I didn't know the Kellogg's rooster's name was Cornelius. Wow...you learn something new everyday

On a somewhat related note, Toys R Us's Geoffrey the Giraffe is 27 years old.
I know this because October is Geoffrey's Birthday sale, and a lot of people ask "How old IS Geoffrey?" and my mother is obsessed w/Geoffrey and has been nagging me. So I looked it up. Geoffrey was introduced as the store mascot in 1978.

It is so sad that I know this now.

Ed Oscuro

10-31-2005, 03:26 PM

I didn't know the Kellogg's rooster's name was Cornelius. Wow...you learn something new everyday
Hey, anytime you need to know something about Kellogg's - I'm your man! LOL

Guess I'll remember about Geoffrey, too...egh, I'm sure I'd read that somewhere before, too!

Jorpho

10-31-2005, 03:47 PM

chrisbid

10-31-2005, 03:49 PM

Red Hedgehog

10-31-2005, 06:47 PM

[quote="JorphoIsn't the problem primarily that Disney is constantly lobbying to extend these deadlines so that Steamboat Willie (and Micky Mouse) doesn't fall into the public domain?

yup, congress keeps giving them what they want, and the supreme court allowed it[/quote]

While this is partially true (lobbying by companies like Disney and Time/Warner were a significant factor in the recent extension of copyright), another reason for the extension of US copyright was to put it in line with Europe. Generally, European countries (western ones, anyway) are much more extreme about copyright than the US.

And for whoever asked earlier, yes copyright is different for individuals as opposed to corporations. If I remember the numbers correctly, for individuals, copyrights last 75 years from the death of the person who created the copyrighted material. For copyrighted material created for part of a corporation, the copyright lasts for 95 years from the date of creation.

Ed Oscuro

10-31-2005, 07:25 PM

Remember Bleem! ? More legal than you'd think; Sony just kept hammering them with lawsuits (this is what I understand, it's always possible Bleem! used some code, but I don't think they did) until they folded.

I think the story is that although it was ruled that the Bleem team did reverse engineer the PSX BIOS, they only did so to make sure they weren't infringing, or something.

[quote]Apple Corp., on the other hand, didn't take action against a company that for many years was trying to legally produce software that emulated Mac OS 9 (I believe) - and by "legally" I mean that they were trying to produce software without reverse engineering, which would've been easy but illegal.
Oh, that was Executor, which can vaguely simulate 68k OS 7 on a good day. (At present, only OS 9.1 and 9.2x cannot be completely emulated on a PC.) I'm guessing Apple pretty much thought that a small company messing with pre-PPC architecture wasn't much of a threat.
Yeah, that's the company! That wasn't Apple's reason for leaving them alone, though. In fact they might have bought the software, but...The company went to Apple a few times to ask if Apple was interested in selling it for Intel systems, and while Apple folks were impressed with the results, they admitted that taking up the software would violate sacred codes:

Andrew Stone, a longtime friend and colleague of Matthews [leader of the team creating Executor], offers further illumination on Apple's position. "I collared this guy who's the head of Rhapsody," [Rhapsody was the code name for the new Mac OS based off NeXt] Stone says. "And I go, 'You have a product here which would allow you--today--to ship on Windows NT and run Macintosh binaries on any Intel box on the planet. And you guys are shying away. Why? Is it religion? Because if it's religion, I'll accept that as an answer.' And then he finally admitted, 'Yeah, it's religion.' I go, 'Good, because you know what? You don't have a technical answer to this.' ... Apple doesn't want the emotional involvement with Cliff. They can't figure out why one guy can do what they can't do." (Taken from Stone's site, article found here (http://www.stone.com/liesAndPropaganda/Alibi_97_07_07/feat.html))

More importantly, Apple never took issue with the many other, much more successful emulator projects which merely required some sort of copy of the Macintosh BIOS and an actual copy of the OS, since without those two components there really wasn't anything copyrighted by Apple involved.
I wouldn't know about that...are we talking emulators for Mac computers, or for Windows PCs?

Isn't the problem [with the 75 year term] primarily that Disney is constantly lobbying to extend these deadlines so that Steamboat Willie (and Micky Mouse) doesn't fall into the public domain?
Hmm, I guess the term is now 95 years..? Here's Wikipedia on the matter:

Steamboat Willie has been close to entering the public domain in the United States several times; each time, copyright protection in the United States has been extended. Many people have claimed that these extensions were a response by the U.S. Congress to extensive lobbying by Disney. However, the copyright extensions that Congress has passed in recent decades have followed extensions in international copyright conventions to which the United States is a signatory. (See U.S. copyright law, Universal Copyright Convention, and Berne Convention.) The U.S. copyright on Steamboat Willie will be in effect through 2023 [Steamboat Willie dates from 1928]. However, it is now public domain in Canada and Australia.
Note that copyright term is longer for a private individual: the life of the author plus usually 50 or 70 years (depending upon where you live).

Anthony1

11-01-2005, 12:39 AM

Ok, I guess my real question is, are we going to see any clones for Genesis or TurboGrafx-16 or anything like that?

Some people might wonder why even make such things and sell them, is there really even a market for them, but if they made new versions of the genny or TG-16, they could make them super small with S-Video plugs on the back of them (true S-Video) and stereo plugs.

In fact, if the NES patents have expired, then what is holding some company back from making a portable NES? I know the size of the cartridges makes it somewhat daunting, but I'm sure lots of people would be interested in a mass manufactured portable NES, if it had a decent screen, and sold for a decent price.

Really, I was looking at maybe 30 years from now, somebody making a system that will play NES carts, Genny Carts, SNES carts, TG-16 Hu cards, Master System carts, etc, etc, etc. It would have to have like 10 different cartridge slots on it!!! But if they could somehow make it as small and compact as possible, with the latest audio/video connections on the other end, it would be pretty cool.

chrisbid

11-01-2005, 09:41 AM

i have a pirate genesis system, it is PAL though, so the technology is there. it is probably the same chipset used in genesis TV games units.

but i dont see anyone producing a legal clone for the genesis for a few reasons

- the Genesis wasnt universally popular like the NES was
- original genny units are a lot more durable than the NES
- there are a flood of genny units on the market (ebay, thrift stores, etc)
- the Genesis 3 was already produced in the late 90's to mild success
- sega has been much more generous with their retro compliations. You can play all of the original sonic the hedgehog games for 20 dollars or less on any modern console, while the SMB series on the NES is a lot more expensive.

Ed Oscuro

11-01-2005, 12:01 PM

Ok, I guess my real question is, are we going to see any clones for Genesis or TurboGrafx-16 or anything like that?
Who needs a Genesis clone? I've got at least six...eight, actually, of the things lying around, and they all work fine, though I would like to see a cheaper region-inspecific model able to output S-video or, dare I say it, RGB.

The ole' TG-16 simply is too obscure.

We've yet to see if the NeX will be a profitable venture.

Technically and legally, though, it's possible. Sachen was making legal Famiclones before Nintendo's patents expired, after all.

We're not likely to see legal clones of CD-ROM era machines as they're too complicated and the companies that produced them created a layer of abstraction between hard- and software; you need more than just figuring out how to get opcodes to the processor in the right order.

Flack

11-01-2005, 12:05 PM

Once the copyright expires I plan on developing a Genesis clone to compete with all the $1.99 ones I see sitting in thrift stores that don't sell.

chrisbid

11-01-2005, 12:14 PM

We're not likely to see legal clones of CD-ROM era machines as they're too complicated and the companies that produced them created a layer of abstraction between hard- and software; you need more than just figuring out how to get opcodes to the processor in the right order.

if the PS3 wasnt backwards compatible, i could easily see a company release a super barebones lowend PC with PSX emulation software.

Ed Oscuro

11-01-2005, 12:14 PM

Once the copyright expires I plan on developing a Genesis clone to compete with all the $1.99 ones I see sitting in thrift stores that don't sell.
Well, I agree, and then I don't...

I don't fully understand the consumer mindset that allows Genesis systems to sit around while NES systems are snapped up, and I don't think bad connectors are the only reason good NES systems fly off the shelves, but it's there.

However, few NES systems come close to the price of the NeX, except the toploader/Sharp NES TV, and of course some of the variants out of Japan (i.e. the Rev 1, naturally), and original NES units really aren't that much worse - just a few reliability issues and slightly worse video output. The NeX is collector/enthusaist fanservice.

Who here would buy an enhanced Genesis clone? Certainly there is a good deal of room for improvement on the Genesis unit, and furthermore it seems that the 6-in-1 direct-to-TV Genesis controller units weren't a totally failed experiment, so there is a market.

Would it be advisable to take it up? Hmm...I don' think so, but I'm also not sure how advisable the NeX is (unless the NeX becomes the homebrew system of choice, that is).

le geek

11-01-2005, 12:15 PM

Hey, anytime you need to know something about Kellogg's - I'm your man! LOL

Okay here are three tough ones...

What is Donald Rumsfeld�s connection to Kellogg?

What is Kellogg's largest brand in the United States?

Which American president appeared on a Kellogg cereal package?

Cheers,
Ben

Ed Oscuro

11-01-2005, 12:24 PM

if the PS3 wasnt backwards compatible, i could easily see a company release a super barebones lowend PC with PSX emulation software.
Well, you could have more PSX emulation packages being produced, I suppose. My point was mostly that you can't clone modern systems without (highly expensive) emulation, and those take real PCs to run. Emulating the PS2 probably would take a top-of-the-line system, and even then who knows if you'd get high-quality graphics and sound?

chrisbid

11-01-2005, 12:29 PM

i think the dreamcast, xbox, playstation1, and gamecube will eventually be fairly easy to emulate. they all use standard to semi standard hardware. the saturn and ps2 not so much.

Anthony1

11-05-2005, 11:09 PM

Well, regarding the Genny, I would love to see a super minaturized version, that has a S-Video output plug on the back and a left and right stereo plugs on the back. Plus, make it the perfect size, so that it can work with a 5 inch LCD screen.

Do the same thing with the SNES, and any other systems as well.

Jorpho

11-06-2005, 08:42 PM

More importantly, Apple never took issue with the many other, much more successful emulator projects which merely required some sort of copy of the Macintosh BIOS and an actual copy of the OS, since without those two components there really wasn't anything copyrighted by Apple involved.
I wouldn't know about that...are we talking emulators for Mac computers, or for Windows PCs?

Oh, I'm talking about the likes of vMac, Basilisk II, Fusion, Softmac (said to be a derivative work), and more recent PPC emulators like SheepShaver and PearPC, not to mention distant Amiga ancestors like ShapeShifter. All of these can run Macintosh code on non-Macintosh machines, provided you have some stuff copyrighted by Apple.

(I wonder: if Executor goes open-source - and it's a distinct possibility, since the company is pretty much dead - will the efficient 68k core lead to better Neo Geo, Amiga, and Genesis emulators?)

GarrettCRW

11-08-2005, 02:23 AM

Isn't the problem primarily that Disney is constantly lobbying to extend these deadlines so that Steamboat Willie (and Micky Mouse) doesn't fall into the public domain?

Basically, yes. The copyright laws have been extended time and again (it's currently at 95 years) whenever "Steamboat Willie" (and, as such, the entire Disney library) becomes in danger of falling into the public domain. A big reason why Disney doesn't want their films to fall into the PD is because of all the non-PC stuff they produced, especially in the black and white days. Many of these dicier productions ("Der Fuehrer's Face" and "Education For Death" to name two) have recently seen DVD releases, but films like Song of the South, "Hell's Bells" (an early Silly Symphony that's been in suppressed distribution since the Hays Code came to be), and Fantasia's long-censored Pastoral Symphony sequence represent skeletons that current management want locked tightly in the closet.

Mickey himself, however, can't fall into the public domain, since he's a trademark of the studio (and one the company will never, ever abandon for obvious reasons).

FantasiaWHT

11-08-2005, 09:43 AM

How about a system that can play NES games, SNES games, Genesis games, etc...

How nice would it be to have one of those sitting under your TV? I'm really sick of the miles of cords that my toddler keeps getting tangled in lol.

Ed Oscuro

11-08-2005, 10:20 AM

Isn't the problem primarily that Disney is constantly lobbying to extend these deadlines so that Steamboat Willie (and Micky Mouse) doesn't fall into the public domain?
Basically, yes. The copyright laws have been extended time and again (it's currently at 95 years) whenever "Steamboat Willie" (and, as such, the entire Disney library) becomes in danger of falling into the public domain.
This is all water under the bridge, but going off that Wiki article it seems that Disney hasn't actually influenced lengthening of copyright laws, as the U.S. is simply lengthening term to meet up with international standards.

As for the Dreamcast and current-gen systems being easy to emulate...I don't think so. Especially true with the PS2 (the emotion engine is a custom part) and the GameCube (all sorts of issues with the drive and buffering software would crop up, I imagine).

It's taken years for "perfect" NES emulators to show up, and emulating exponentially more complex systems with custom parts and encryption could prove impossible (just check out the progress of MAME devs on encrypted systems and those with undocumented - for whatever reason - parts, custom or otherwise). If you can't get a schematic for the chip but want to emulate its functions perfectly, all that's left is to get this ridiculously expensive and complex modelling software. Of course you can always approximate if you're willing to get less-accurate results, but where's the fun in that?

n8littlefield

11-08-2005, 10:27 AM

I think the most recent we'll see clones for is the 16bit generation - MAYBE the N64. The only reason I say this is that the companies putting these out aren't spending a ton of money on research/development, and once you hit the CD rom based systems, you have to find a way to do a BIOS image. The hardware patents would have expired, but the copyright on the BIOS software wouldn't have, meaning you'd have to do one from scratch, something I wouldn't expect most Famiclone makers are up for!

Ed Oscuro

11-08-2005, 10:39 AM

...you'd have to do one [make a BIOS] from scratch, something I wouldn't expect most Famiclone makers are up for!
Exactly. For the PC-Engine CD-ROM system, though, you could always make a deal with the Magic Engine guy to license his...or perhaps NEC would be up for licensing theirs.

Jorpho

11-08-2005, 10:45 AM

Of course you can always approximate if you're willing to get less-accurate results, but where's the fun in that?

UltraHLE seemed to have no shortage of fans.

and once you hit the CD rom based systems, you have to find a way to do a BIOS image. The hardware patents would have expired, but the copyright on the BIOS software wouldn't have, meaning you'd have to do one from scratch, something I wouldn't expect most Famiclone makers are up for!

Well, cartridge-based systems can have nontrivial BIOS programs as well. And the Bleem! people apparently came up with their own PSX BIOS. But then, there's still no such thing as a freeware Amiga Kickstart replacement after all these years.

Ed Oscuro

11-08-2005, 10:52 AM

Of course you can always approximate if you're willing to get less-accurate results, but where's the fun in that?
UltraHLE seemed to have no shortage of fans.
Yeah, it's still going...I slipped a bit and just started writing about actual emulators, instead of systems like Bleem! and the NeX, which aren't supposed to be MAME-accurate to begin with...