Is this considered illegal?

[kevin_psx]

Let's use the Mega Man collection as an example. It contains Mega Man 1-6 from the NES. So.. what if I dont have GC/PS2/Xbox? Do I need to buy one of these and the game just to play Mega Man 6?

No you don't have to buy. But then you're a thief. Putting programmers out of work 'cause Nintendo/Sega went bankrupt 'cause you stole their games.First of all, no this is not the thruth. Even Goat said you can buy Mega Man 6 used


Buying used cart is not stealing. My original point "No you don't have to buy. But then you're a thief" still stands.

[jajaja]

I dont really see what that have to do with anything. That would be like me saying "If you leave the milk out for 3 weeks it will be sour". It doesnt have anything to do with old ROMs.

[jajaja]

Is www.c64.com illegal?

[omnedon]

In some parts of the world it's illegal to speak against the government.

Very illegal. ILLEGAL.

The word 'illegal' should have the commensurate amount of respect that goes with that sort of use.

Right and wrong, and legal and illegal have nothing to do with each other in many many cases.

What blows my mind is that there are those here who think the original programmer on NES Mega Man 6 gets money from the modern compilation. LOL Sorry, time for e areality check. That gifted programmer got his paycheque like the rest of us do, and he was paid back in the day. The copyright holder gets the cash. Example - Michael Jackson owns the rights to a great many Beatles songs. He didn't exactly contribute much to their composition. LOL

BIG Picture time:

The Genie is out of the bottle. Expect the future of copyright to either go fascist, or go away in our lifetimes.

Fascist - you buy the music on a format. Years later a new format comes out. Your old format is sent a suicide signal and is destroyed digitally. You are forced to buy it on a new format. A copyright holders wet dream. If you think they aren't already trying to make that sort of thing happen you are being naive.

Gone away- since everyone can copy things, there will no longer much money to be made in selling copies of things. :roll: Musicians will still sell discs, but popular ones may not sell in such insane quantities, earning insane amounts of revenues. Music and art will continue, much like it did before copyright. They will perform for many, and poular ones will still get rich, though they may have to work a bit harder.


There are thorny things to be worked out in the future. What I am sure of is this, any business model that depends on the right to make copies of something that is easily copied by anybody, is going to have a struggling business model.

In a world where anybody can produce, copy, transmit, and promote anything, a lot of middlemen will lose their jobs. It may be too bad, but most of the chimney sweeps and carriage makers lost their jobs too. Times change.

[jajaja]

A very good post omnedon :) I must say.
I never really thought about the point you said about illegal and right or wrong, but its true. I'll try to remember that for future discussions hehe :)

[video_game_addict]

Whether you buy used software or new, you are still purchasing a legitimate copy of the game. Downloading the rom you are not.

It's not a matter of whether they are making money on each sell, there has always existed a secondary market for things, but that you choose to download instead of buying a legal copy of said game.

Just saying you want a NES version, and that you shouldn't need to buy a current generation emulated version does not make things any different. The companies do still own the rights to these games. Emulation & roms do cut into possible sells.

One can argue that the current versions just don't do it for them.. That they want the originals, and they have no interest in buying a next gen version, but if you took away all the roms & emulation from the internet, more people would probably show an interest in the next gen versions of these games. Everyone has to get their fix somehow.. As it stands now, it's too easy just to download a rom. But if they were to disappear you'd have alot more interest I think anyway in what these companies put out.

[jajaja]

I dont know why I got so involved in the discussion acctually, I hardly play ROMs. Come to think of it I hardly play any games at all. All I play so to say is Medal of Honor for PC online.

[kevin_psx]

What blows my mind is that there are those here who think the original programmer on NES Mega Man 6 gets money from the modern compilation. LOL Sorry, time for e areality check. That gifted programmer got his paycheque like the rest of us do
Yeah but that programmer might still work for Nintendo or Sega & not appreciate you driving his company into bankruptcy 'cause you stole their games.

You might try and justify stealing milk from your local farmer's cow. You can try. Still stealing. Still morally wrong.



Nintendo (and WB and Apple) have right idea about offering games, tv shows, music for download. Direct sales to the customer. But you should still pay for those downloads. Or pay for the dvds. Not steal.

[jajaja]

What blows my mind is that there are those here who think the original programmer on NES Mega Man 6 gets money from the modern compilation. LOL Sorry, time for e areality check. That gifted programmer got his paycheque like the rest of us do
Yeah but that programmer might still work for Nintendo or Sega & not appreciate you driving his company into bankruptcy 'cause you stole their games.

You might try and justify stealing milk from your local farmer's cow. You can try. Still stealing. Still morally wrong.

Im just curious, can you name a company that have gone bankrupt because people pirated their software? I heard many people say this, but I never knew which companies.

[kevin_psx]

None. But there are plenty of layoffs due to poor sales. Sega's programmers lost their jobs - cause sales were poor - cause games were stolen - not bought.

You think programmers deserved to be laid off - so gamers could play free dreamcast games? Is that a fair trade?


YOU think stealing is okay? Wonder why this topic makes me so angry? Read: http://www.digitpress.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=859539#859539

[jajaja]

True, but if a game is selling bad its most because its not very know or got enough previews/reviews or that it simply sux. Why Sega didnt make it as good as Nintendo are other reasons than piracy I belive.

[goatdan]

and don't say "plenty of non-cib or non-nib versions" because collectors wouldn't accept them neither should gamers,

I actually agree with a lot of your points, but did you seriously just say that if you can't get a game complete for a low price, it is fair to accept a ROM for free as a replacement?

That voids just about everything else.


First of all, no this is not the thruth. Even Goat said you can buy Mega Man 6 used so if you want to play it you dont have to buy the Mega Man Anniversary collection.
Seriously, why do you think im talking about pirating new stuff? God damn, read what Im writing man, im talking about old console ROMs, not new games!

Again, I ask, where do you draw the line between an old console ROM and a new one?

And what he said, and what I intended to say is that if you want the new game on newer formats, you must pay for them legally. It isn't legal to pirate Mega Man Collection if you have all the games in the collection.


First, you should be very careful about throwing out accusations like that. You make up a picture in your mind that Im some kid who download all kinds of shit just because I dont see anything wrong downloading old ROMs (not talking about images). So you should be careful about judging people you dont know. Second, there have always been piracy.

You haven't explained how you can draw a line? NES and 2600 stuff is legal because they are older than the Dreamcast? Until you draw a line, I think you're a pirate that will pirate everything because you "don't agree with the law."


Take the new consoles, there are probly alot of pirating going on with the PS2 and Xbox and you dont see these consoles dying. Piracy might be one of the factor for the fall of Dreamcast, but it sure wasnt the only one.

Right. I'll start contacting the people in the industry that I know who have told me otherwise to tell me that they were incorrect about why the Dreamcast got discontinued.


Your talking about piracy like the A2600 and NES are totaly new on the marked, im not. Im talking about stuff that arent sold anymore, 2 completely diffrent things. If you buy a game and resell it the company only get payed for 1 sale, but 2 people have owned it.

If you are still making this point, and everyone else has read and understood mine, I don't care. Keep sailing the mighty pirate seas, matey.


But clearly you dont understand what my point is or you dont want to understand just so you can agrue, so i will end the conversation here.

Thank god.


What blows my mind is that there are those here who think the original programmer on NES Mega Man 6 gets money from the modern compilation. LOL Sorry, time for e areality check. That gifted programmer got his paycheque like the rest of us do, and he was paid back in the day. The copyright holder gets the cash. Example - Michael Jackson owns the rights to a great many Beatles songs. He didn't exactly contribute much to their composition. LOL

I hope you don't think that I'm one of the people that think that the original programmers get paid for it. But just like in the Michael Jackson / Beatles example, someone owns the rights for that game. That person -- whether the programmer, development house or publisher -- can sell those rights if they choose to whomever. So, while the Beatles themselves may not get money when a new compilations of the songs comes out, the legal copyright holder has the legal rights to make money on them.


BIG Picture time:

The Genie is out of the bottle. Expect the future of copyright to either go fascist, or go away in our lifetimes.

Fascist - you buy the music on a format. Years later a new format comes out. Your old format is sent a suicide signal and is destroyed digitally. You are forced to buy it on a new format. A copyright holders wet dream. If you think they aren't already trying to make that sort of thing happen you are being naive.

Gone away- since everyone can copy things, there will no longer much money to be made in selling copies of things. :roll: Musicians will still sell discs, but popular ones may not sell in such insane quantities, earning insane amounts of revenues. Music and art will continue, much like it did before copyright. They will perform for many, and poular ones will still get rich, though they may have to work a bit harder.

My feeling is that it will be hard to have it truly go either way. While the music industry especially (specifically, ironically, Sony) would have a wet dream with being able to do that, when you purchase the copy you own, you do _get something_. That's why it is legal to mod a console, but not use your modded console to play pirated games.

On the other side, copyright holders can't be made into something that everyone can take advantage of.

The law is already screwed up. (By the way, thanks for the sensible post so I can make a middle of the road reply for once). The DMCA completely screws everyone. Totally.

The DMCA was created because certain companies, especially Disney, have characters that were created years ago that always get close to going into public domain. But Disney is still making money off those properties. Perhaps the best example is Mickey Mouse.

He came out how long ago? But when you think of Disney, or Disneyland, or Walt Disney, or anything associated with that you generally think of Mickey Mouse. If Mickey were released into public domain, therefore allowing other companies to publish Steamboat Willey and Plane Crazy, or make new features starring Mickey Mouse (maybe where he is a swearing idiot... or a anime porn star... etc), Disney's image could take a hit.

Disney is right in protecting their copyrights on a character like that which is still being used.

I would argue that the law should be if a property hasn't been used for 20 years, it reverts to public domain. And by property, I mean either the original thing, characters featured in it and so on. If the property has been used, it would get another 20 years.

Therefore, Disney keeps Mickey as long as they are doing new things with him once every 20 years. And since they do constantly at their theme parks, they could retain it. Same thing with games that could be used to make the original copyright holder more money in the future. If you haven't done anything with it within 20 years, it probably isn't worth much any more.

Therefore, 2600 games like Haunted House would become public domain. On the other hand, since Pac-Man is still a viable property, it would remain under copyright.

That makes sense to me. And I think that something along those lines will end up happening when these things finally go to court because that comes into common sense. Yes, it is very important for Disney that they keep Mickey under their umbrella so he isn't suddenly doing millions of damage to the Disney image. But without a use for something after 20 years, it should become everyone's.

Oh, and jajaja, _that_ would be a legal definition that you could make. Unlike just saying, "It's old" or "If you buy it used, the developer never makes any money on it" (which is wrong), the developers / publishers would have the pressure to keep their viable properties up to date, and their older ones would become public property at a fair date.


There are thorny things to be worked out in the future. What I am sure of is this, any business model that depends on the right to make copies of something that is easily copied by anybody, is going to have a struggling business model.

In a world where anybody can produce, copy, transmit, and promote anything, a lot of middlemen will lose their jobs. It may be too bad, but most of the chimney sweeps and carriage makers lost their jobs too. Times change.

Again, I agree with things changing, but just as one last example in the above situation...

Lets say that the Mickey Mouse Porno gets produced. It is advertised as MouSEXcapdes starring Mickey Mouse!

I think that we can agree that the company who makes it would get a lot of attention because Disney has poured so much money into Mickey's image. And that having such a release could definitely damage Disney's clean image, which would in turn hurt their business model.

That isn't fair. In the case of chimney sweeps, a new technology made them lose their jobs. It wasn't that someone walked in, hijacked their sweeps and defiled them so that people had a different image of what chimney sweeps are. Copyrights involve company images, which is a much tougher thing to properly protect. To be fair to companies (people), you must still allow them to protect what they are using.

@ video_game_addict - Thank you for that. I agree with everything you said.


Im just curious, can you name a company that have gone bankrupt because people pirated their software? I heard many people say this, but I never knew which companies.

Sega.

Oh yeah, you don't believe me.


True, but if a game is selling bad its most because its not very know or got enough previews/reviews or that it simply sux. Why Sega didnt make it as good as Nintendo are other reasons than piracy I belive.

I'll just add that people that I trust in real life have had conversations with me about it when they thought I was crazy, and everyone realized I understand what I'm talking about. Some of those people are on this board. And you know what? I am extremely thankful for the fact that I can trust them enough to keep their mouths shut.

I'll make a note to never talk with you about things like that.

[jajaja]

Hehe didnt know you where that immature goatdan, I thought you were older than 16 years old.
You even admit that you download pirated material, so you can sail the 7 seas matey arrrrr.

But to approach it in another way, do you think its right or wrong to download old ROMs? You asked for a line, check the first post what this discussion is about and you will find where the line goes. In case you dont see it its from SNES/Genesis and back.

Ok, if you belive that the only reason Sega didnt make it was because of piracy, ok, fine with me.

But I think we stop here. You dont have to comment on the post. I think this could have been a good discussion if you havnt started talking bad things about me. So before it gets even more out of hand I dont want to discuss more.

[kevin_psx]

jaja probably jack's milk from the local farmer's cow. And then says, "But he wasn't using it" or "It was old" to justify the theft.

That's about how this debate boils down. Stealing other people's property & claiming it's okay.

nuts

[goatdan]

Hehe didnt know you where that immature goatdan, I thought you were older than 16 years old.
You even admit that you download pirated material, so you can sail the 7 seas matey arrrrr.

Look, I call a spade a spade and I'm also extremely honest. And you know what? It has earned me a lot of trust with people that I like having a lot of trust with because of it.

I have used some ROMs. Rarely, and for a purpose that I feel is generally validated. You haven't validated anything. I'm sorry, but that's true.


But to approach it in another way, do you think its right or wrong to download old ROMs? You asked for a line, check the first post what this discussion is about and you will find where the line goes. In case you dont see it its from SNES/Genesis and back.

You said that, but you never once said how you came to that conclusion. In court, if you admit you're doing something against the law (as you are), you have to prove why you aren't guilty for it. Saying, "Well, the Genesis and the SNES are old" are not a valid argument.

Using the Disney argument, should you be able to grab Mickey's Magical Challenge and sell it yourself because it was on the Genesis? Even though that Disney owns Mickey?

Answer these and I'll be happy to continue on a nice basis. Just say, "I can pirate what I want because the law sucks" and you're just that -- a pirate.


Ok, if you belive that the only reason Sega didnt make it was because of piracy, ok, fine with me.

Ok, I'm glad that's settled.


But I think we stop here. You dont have to comment on the post. I think this could have been a good discussion if you havnt started talking bad things about me. So before it gets even more out of hand I dont want to discuss more.

If you want to reply to my points with something that follows, please do. I am happy to continue on a civil basis. But me stating that you need to look at this from a law standpoint and you saying, "The SNES / Genesis are old enough" without any further backing isn't a good enough reason.

[SoulBlazer]

Sgea decided to stop making hardware because of piracy? :hmm:

Sorry, Goatdan. I agree with most of your points, and maybe I misread that one, but if you're REALLY saying that, I call BS. Sega failed for numerous reasons -- piracy was only a SMALL bit of it. I don't see the DC as being hurt by pirates any worse (or less) then the PS2 and XBox have been.

[goatdan]

Sgea decided to stop making hardware because of piracy? :hmm:

Sorry, Goatdan. I agree with most of your points, and maybe I misread that one, but if you're REALLY saying that, I call BS. Sega failed for numerous reasons -- piracy was only a SMALL bit of it. I don't see the DC as being hurt by pirates any worse (or less) then the PS2 and XBox have been.

As I said, believe what you will. I can't (and won't) publicly destroy trust it took me years to build up. :)

[jajaja]

Ok, but I think what happend to this discussion was that I was talking more of whats right or wrong. You were more on whats legal and illegal, which was what the acctually discussion was about, i admit that. You might be right that the law say that its not allowed, even if the consoles are out of production. But do you think this is right?
Personaly (as you might have already figured out from previously posts hehe) I dont agree with this law.

About the Mickey Mouse example, I see your point, but I wouldnt compare it to like NES. NES was taken off the marked officialy years ago, but Mickey Mouse products and movies are still made.
Im hope we can discuss this in a civil way like you said and disagree without resulting to badmouth eachother.

[Vectorman0]

Sgea decided to stop making hardware because of piracy? :hmm:

Sorry, Goatdan. I agree with most of your points, and maybe I misread that one, but if you're REALLY saying that, I call BS. Sega failed for numerous reasons -- piracy was only a SMALL bit of it. I don't see the DC as being hurt by pirates any worse (or less) then the PS2 and XBox have been.

I have a bit more faith in Goatdan considering how much he cares about dreamcast. Not his collecting, but his involvement with getting new games released would lead me to believe he didn't just pull the said comment out of a magical hat.

But since it is clear that he can't go any further into detail I really think the "pirating causing sega to go under" discussion has nowhere to go but around in circles.
</.02>

Ah, and in regards to the original post, I don't have a problem with emulation up to systems before dreamcast. I can't justify it, but I rarely play any ROM for more than five minutes and if I do, I will probably end up buying the game.

[Mangar]

If you own the game, I don't think it is illegal to make a copy of it as long as it is for personal use. I agree with that completely too.

It's not illegal. You are correct.

This is still a silly argument though. If you are playing roms that you don't own an original copy for, you are breaking the law. Period. It don't matter if YOU think it's ok. It's still technically against the law.

I just don't understand why anyone who plays roms, or even pirates modern games/dvd's/music cares in the slightest. Have a little self-respect, and just accept what is obvious - You are breaking the law.

I pirate pretty much everything, and honestly couldn't give a fuck who thinks its wrong or right. Don't like it? (shrug) It is however against the LAW, and attempting to debate that it's not... Is quite simply assinine.

[SoulBlazer]

I was just saying that based on all of the PUBLICLY available information I've seen and read over the years, in the reasons given for why Sega and the DC failed, piracy was always given as a small reason, not the major number one or number two (lack of money, bad marketing, damage to Sega's name, and the PS2 have always been the major reasons I've seen).

I understand if goatdan does'nt want to say anything else about that publicly -- and I did'nt really want to get this off track too much -- I was just very curious about what he said.

Yes, I have NES/SNES/Genesis ROMS on my computer and play them. Yes, I know it's illegial. So is the speeding I do every day. I try to be carefull with it and only have ROM's for games that are no longer sold in ANY form, but I'm also NOT about to spend $50-100 for a system and game for something that often I just want to TRY. Anyone who has been here for a while knows the posts I've made in the past about my experience with Snatcher. :)

[kevin_psx]

You might be right that the law say that its not allowed, even if the consoles are out of production. But do you think this is right? Personaly I dont agree with this law.

Yes law's correct. No not Moral to download old games. WHY? ----> Nintendo has NES/SNES/N64 games for downloading next year. If you prefer owning a cartridge - Nintendo offers old NES/SNES/N64 games for their DS or GBA portables or Gameboy Player tv console.

You think it's okay to steal games that Nintendo has sitting on store shelves? Really? Truly? You think that's okay?

bullshit.

You sound you are cut the same cloth as whoever jacked 50 games from me. That guy probably said, "Oh he's not coming back. These games are abandonware. I'll just take them." BULL. That was my property. It's not "okay" - it's stealing.



Downloading ROMS of Link to the Past or Mario 64 or Excitebike - all readily available in stores - is taking Nintendo's property. It's not "okay" - it's stealing.

[Mangar]

Downloading ROMS of Link to the Past or Mario 64 or Excitebike - all readily available in stores - is taking Nintendo's property. It's not "okay" - it's stealing.

Stupid argument.

Being "Okay" is relative to the individual. Whats "okay" to one person, may or may not be "okay" to another. When you state personal opinion as fact, you always end up losing. Personally, i have no problem whatsoever with him downloading roms of Mario 64. This don't make me wrong. Nor does being against it make you right. Attempting to make a claim that it does, simply paints you as a holier then thou schmuck. Especially when you try to paint him as exactly the same as a guy who physically stole 50 games from you.

It is illegal however. As for the moralizing? I'll leave that to bible thumpers, priests, and holier then thou pricks with chips on their shoulders.

[jajaja]

Its 2 diffrent things. If you go into a store a physicaly steal a item than instead of downloading it. If you steal a game inside the store you get the manual, box, disc etc. Downloading isnt a physical thing, its only data, 0 and 1.
I dont want to start a another discussion about this because its another topic and that discussion can go on for hours. But to say it simple, I dont agree with that you comparing downloading and stealing in stores.

"Pirating" (use " because I wouldnt call it pirating these days) old ROMs isnt only bad. There are many ROMs I've tried that have resulted me to buy the game. Just to take an example, Wild Guns for SNES. I had never heard of the game before I saw it for sale on Ebay. Then I downloaded the ROM and that game owned. Later on I bought it. I would also recommend everyone this game. If I havnt tried the ROM I wouldnt have bought it. And since I tried it I can recommend it to others which might result in more sales.
Do you see my point? :)

[kevin_psx]

edit

deleted - double post

[jajaja]

For what I know most artists doesnt make much on album sales. The record company takes alot of the money. They make most on conserts etc. But that is another discussion.

[kevin_psx]

Downloading ROMS of Link to the Past or Mario 64 or Excitebike - all readily available in stores - is taking Nintendo's property. It's not "okay" - it's stealing. Especially when you try to paint him as exactly the same as a guy who physically stole 50 games from you.

Stealing a game from my apartment
Stealing a game from Nintendo
Don't see a difference. You are taking someone else's property

- and yes 0's and 1's are property. Like stealing a song. Depriving the artist of his/her sweat & labor & income.



If you created games or wrote songs, you'd be first to complain about stealing your creations & spreading it all over the world. Can you not put yourself into the gamemaker or the songwriter's shoes & imagine what it's like to have your creations stolen???

[jajaja]

Well.. it depends. Some artits acctually agree that their music are being spread for free. This is a great way to reach alot of people. I've seen people on forum saying that they downloaded music from artists they never heard of and ended up buying their albums.

Ive made about 400 songs myself (.mod's), all for free of course. I know many have leeched them for free and that is fine with me. But if they started selling it it would be something diffrent.

[petewhitley]

Stealing a game from my apartment
Stealing a game from Nintendo
Don't see a difference. You are taking someone else's property

- and yes 0's and 1's are property. Like stealing a song. Depriving the artist of his/her sweat & labor & income.

Dude you're high. For one, the individual who stole your games was not stealing anything from the copyright holders. They stole something from you. It's a terrible analogy and you should drop it.

[SlayerOfFurbies]

What can i say... i'm a convert.

When i got my dreamcast i downloaded ever game that i could because i couldn't find that many legit games to buy. now, i am proud to say that i own close to 200 titles for the system.

To touch on why we see so many compelations from video game makers. over the years i suspect they have noticed a greater interest in retro games and thought they should cash in. Namco did it. Midway did it. nintendo plans on doing it with the revolution. So without emulation they would never have rerleased pac-man 500 times :D

[Tanis178]

"and don't say "plenty of non-cib or non-nib versions" because collectors wouldn't accept them neither should gamers,"

my point was that is it right to force one to "settle" for just a cart of a game no longer manufactured for that system to satisfy legality

as far as the recent talk about music artists, doesn't even apply to this topic in the least, you can still buy new copies of music because the players and media are still supported, but if you want to compare the 2 imagine yourself having a choice:

1. buy a cassette with no case or booklet because that's all you can find

2. burn a cd of mp3's of the same album and add a case and artwork to your liking not too mention a cd label as well

i'm not for or against rom usage, i've got around 500 games or so, but i also have a dozen or so roms that i use because i can't find an original or afford the prices asked.

[goatdan]

Ok, but I think what happend to this discussion was that I was talking more of whats right or wrong. You were more on whats legal and illegal, which was what the acctually discussion was about, i admit that. You might be right that the law say that its not allowed, even if the consoles are out of production. But do you think this is right?

I've explained, quite in detail I might add, how I believe that copyrights should expire on stuff that companies aren't using but not for stuff they are. Mickey Mouse in Steamboat Willy? Disney should keep those rights. Ram It for the 2600 (a game I once tried to find the rights owner to try to purchase them legally only to find out that literally no one knows where they are now), that should be public domain. It's 22 years old. No one is making any money from it. The original copyright holders are literally gone.


About the Mickey Mouse example, I see your point, but I wouldnt compare it to like NES. NES was taken off the marked officialy years ago, but Mickey Mouse products and movies are still made.

But so are collections of NES games. See, this is where your argument has been confusing me. The NES was taken off the market years ago, but new titles based on certain properties (Mario, Mega Man, Castlevania, Zelda, etc) continue to be made from series that started there. Same with Pitfall on the 2600 and so on. Lots of examples.

The original Steamboat Willy cartoon was taken out of theaters decades ago. But Disney has released it in VHS format, and then again in DVD format. This means that Disney still owns the rights to use that. You as a consumer cannot take Steamboat Willy and use the characters or whatever from it.

If you allow all of the NES games to go into public domain as is, Mario and Zelda would both become usable by anyone. Could you imagine the damage that would be done to Nintendo if EA decided to make a Zelda game exclusive to the Xbox 360? You can't just let those slip into the public domain.

And therefore, you can't just allow ROM sharing between systems based on age alone. If Nintendo or Capcom are still using their characters from the NES days, they shouldn't have to worry about someone else stealing them.


"and don't say "plenty of non-cib or non-nib versions" because collectors wouldn't accept them neither should gamers,"

my point was that is it right to force one to "settle" for just a cart of a game no longer manufactured for that system to satisfy legality

The company that made the game isn't "forcing" you to "settle" for a non complete cartridge. They are not driving you to pirate it, which still when I last checked gives you _nothing_ original, unlike buying a used copy where you get a legally produced cartridge or disc out of the deal.

That's just a really strange justification of the reason it is okay to pirate, sorry. As I've said time and time again in this thread, I totally understand some of it. But justifying it as, "Complete copies are expensive, and I an entitled a complete copy cheaply.. if they can't do that, I can steal a copy of it." is a very odd justification.


as far as the recent talk about music artists, doesn't even apply to this topic in the least, you can still buy new copies of music because the players and media are still supported, but if you want to compare the 2 imagine yourself having a choice:

1. buy a cassette with no case or booklet because that's all you can find

2. burn a cd of mp3's of the same album and add a case and artwork to your liking not too mention a cd label as well

But there is no way that would be your only choices. There is nothing out there that was so amazingly popular on cassette but they never put it on CD. And if there was, complete copies of the cassette would not cost outrageous sums of money.

I don't think you're going to make me understand this argument, sorry.


When i got my dreamcast i downloaded ever game that i could because i couldn't find that many legit games to buy. now, i am proud to say that i own close to 200 titles for the system.

And I hope that if any of those were the games I did that you have already found legal copies of them ;)

I once had a collector brag to me -- TO ME -- that he was so happy that he was finally able to find a copy of Feet of Fury through the warez channels because, "The guys that made it were going to release it for free until some idiot came along and decided to charge for it, so it's fair that I get it." The game wasn't going to go any further than the demo before I got involved. And of course, he didn't realize that I had anything to do with the production of the game at the time.

Thus ended the trade I had going with the guy.

I'll admit, I'm one of the guys that kinda has a personal chip on his shoulder when this topic comes up for reasons just like that. I wish that some of you at some point look at it from the other side and realize that companies -- no matter if its the giant Disney or the measley "I do it for fun!" GOAT Store -- those companies have a right to protect their content if they so choose, and it is a right that gets hurt when people steal, and yes that is what it is, steal from them.

I'm lucky enough to never yet had anything of large value stolen from me physically. But stealing 0s and 1s does some strange stuff too.


To touch on why we see so many compelations from video game makers. over the years i suspect they have noticed a greater interest in retro games and thought they should cash in. Namco did it. Midway did it. nintendo plans on doing it with the revolution. So without emulation they would never have rerleased pac-man 500 times :D

I think that part of it was that, and the other part was that before the DMCA, the push was for a copyright system like the one I described -- with companies re-upping their rights if they wanted to after so many years. By starting to re-release stuff, those companies could prove they were still properties worth money, and therefore keep them.

Of course, the DMCA passed while this was going on, but Namco, Midway and so on realized that there was a ton of money to be made in it anyway, so they continue.

A big part of it needs to be, like with CDs, putting in content that people will be willing to pay more for. Things like making-of documentaries, promotional scans and so on are reasons to get the new stuff for fans that are also pirates. It's an interesting line to have to toe, that's for sure.

[Tanis178]

i never said it was ok to pirate i said that i can see why people do and why it's such a grey area, and no you can't get everything cassette on cd either, just like not everything vhs is on dvd, i've seen those weblinks in your sig and if you have any association with those sites then perhaps your own personal bias is affecting your arguements here, one of the points of this topic is that it's a very grey law that doesn't neccessarily apply to all countries and that there are too many variables to consider otherwise it would have been made clear by now.

some people can't afford retail, others simply don't want to, but to force people to buy obsolete hardware and games is wrong and no one will ever convince anyone otherwise. i'll use jaguar as an example, correct me if i'm wrong but there are 225,000 atari jaguars made? and only 135,000 or so sold?

and of that number subtract broken ones, forgotten ones, people who have 2-3 etc etc.

between that and whatever remaining software is left, until someone puts out a "jaguar's greatest hits" package, i just can't see what's wrong with an emulator, but at the same time i think it's wrong to have ps1 pirated because of how common and cheap the games are and the hardware as well

[jajaja]

Goatdan: No, I dont want Nintendo to give up the copyright for the games, thats not what I mean. I mean that downloading ROMs for personal use shouldnt be illegal. Because these games arent officialy for sale anymore. I dont know how it is with Steamboat Willie. Do Disney still sell it?
Im very against selling of ROMs and pirated material. Making money on ROMs and piracy is extremely lame.

[Eternal Champion]

OK, I still don't understand how it's OK to resell a bought item, be it book or CD or whatever, as the copyright holder will only make money on the initial sale. The resale amount goes to the seller's pocket only. So if I buy a secondhand copy of the new Anthrax recording, the publisher is not getting a cent. So why is this legal? If something is still in print, shouldn't consumers be obliged to buy a copy that will benefit the copyright holder?

Sure, many NES games are in compilations, but many MANY are not. Buying a used game from Ebay does not benefit the copyright holder, it only gives money to the seller. To me, that looks like exploiting copyrighted material to make yourself money.

[video_game_addict]

some people can't afford retail, others simply don't want to, but to force people to buy obsolete hardware and games is wrong and no one will ever convince anyone otherwise.



I don't think anybody is forcing us to buy videogames. No one here *needs* videogames to live off of. They are just an entertainment consumer good that are not necessity to our daily life. The fact that they are obsolete just means they are subject to common supply and demand factors.

[goatdan]

i never said it was ok to pirate i said that i can see why people do and why it's such a grey area, and no you can't get everything cassette on cd either, just like not everything vhs is on dvd, i've seen those weblinks in your sig and if you have any association with those sites then perhaps your own personal bias is affecting your arguements here, one of the points of this topic is that it's a very grey law that doesn't neccessarily apply to all countries and that there are too many variables to consider otherwise it would have been made clear by now.

Have you not read anything that I have posted? "i've seen those weblinks in your sig and if you have any association with those sites"? I've been arguing this from my standpoint _as a copyright holder whose rights have been infringed on_. I was never hiding that fact. And if you read the rest of my posts, I've also argued that there is a grey area.


some people can't afford retail, others simply don't want to, but to force people to buy obsolete hardware and games is wrong and no one will ever convince anyone otherwise. i'll use jaguar as an example, correct me if i'm wrong but there are 225,000 atari jaguars made? and only 135,000 or so sold?

and of that number subtract broken ones, forgotten ones, people who have 2-3 etc etc.

between that and whatever remaining software is left, until someone puts out a "jaguar's greatest hits" package, i just can't see what's wrong with an emulator, but at the same time i think it's wrong to have ps1 pirated because of how common and cheap the games are and the hardware as well

1st, if there were 225,000 of something made, where did the other 80,000 go? The true number of Jaguar's made is a mystery, but seeing as how I also knew people involved with it, is probably much higher than 225,000.

But you can get a Jaguar online for $60.00. And games for between $5 and $50. Last I checked, that is pretty similiar to the PS1. Your argument still doesn't make sense.


Goatdan: No, I dont want Nintendo to give up the copyright for the games, thats not what I mean. I mean that downloading ROMs for personal use shouldnt be illegal. Because these games arent officialy for sale anymore.

But here's the problem with that line of thought in copyright law -- if it becomes legal for anyone to get them, then anyone can also take that property and use it for their own use. So downloading Super Mario Brothers 1, 2 and 3 for a NES emulator would be legal, but so would be using them on a disc for the Xbox 360 from Microsoft.

The law would need to differentiate between uses, and it would be much more clear if they just forced the copyright holder to renew. Like I said, I do think it's fair for Nintendo to keep making money off their old properties if they can...


I dont know how it is with Steamboat Willie. Do Disney still sell it?

Yes, and it's a perfect example of the above... Walt Disney, when he was making cartoons and movies, realized that he could make a lot of money in the future by essentially creating a franchise -- like Nintendo did with Mario and Zelda -- with the Disney characters. He realized that paying extra to do stuff so it would hold up in the future would gain them a lot of money in the long run, even if he wasn't gaining it originally. It was really part of his genius.

The Disney corporation still repackages and sells things like Steamboat Willy, and a lot of the earlier things they did still make tons of money. Snow White and the 7 Dwarfs, the first full-length animated film, still makes them BOATLOADS of cash as they use Snow White as a "Disney Princess" (currently, their most popular line of merchandise) and the release the movie every so often.

Snow White is easily old enough that if it wasn't for the changes that Disney forced, it would be in the public domain. And Disney couldn't be making any of the money off it that they do. Unfortunately, Disney changed the law (well, as we all know how laws are really made, paid enough in support dollars to have politicians change the law) so that it encompasses too much, and gives copyright holders unfair advantages.


Im very against selling of ROMs and pirated material. Making money on ROMs and piracy is extremely lame.

The clause could be that you can't make money on ROMs that are at least a certain age or characters and things created within them, but the problem with that becomes what happens when Nintendo wants to put Mario 3 for sale on the Revolution? Now does Nintendo not control the copyright anymore?

Just things to think about.


OK, I still don't understand how it's OK to resell a bought item, be it book or CD or whatever, as the copyright holder will only make money on the initial sale. The resale amount goes to the seller's pocket only. So if I buy a secondhand copy of the new Anthrax recording, the publisher is not getting a cent. So why is this legal? If something is still in print, shouldn't consumers be obliged to buy a copy that will benefit the copyright holder?

Sure, many NES games are in compilations, but many MANY are not. Buying a used game from Ebay does not benefit the copyright holder, it only gives money to the seller. To me, that looks like exploiting copyrighted material to make yourself money.

This is a concept that I don't understand why people aren't getting. I'll try to explain this again...

When you buy a copy of a copyrighted material, be that movie, game, book, CD, whatever, you are paying for the rights for _that copy_ to be used and played. So, if you purchased a copy of the Anthrax CD, you now have the right to listen to that copyrighted material from that CD.

If you decide to sell that copy, what you are doing is essentially transferring the rights that you paid for to someone else. After you have sold it, you as the original consumer no longer has the right to listen to the Anthrax CD. You don't have the physical CD in your hands, which is basically the 'contract' if you will saying that you can listen to it.

If you're in a group and listening to that CD, you're still listening to the CD that was properly purchased and paid for. If you give that CD to one of your friends to borrow, she can listen to it while she has it, and again you're not supposed to listen to copies you have made during that time (although that's another grey area, but lets not get into that now).

When a CD is pirated, you are taking the rights that were purchased on one CD and transferring them to many different people without ever legally transferring the "license" that you purchased with the CD. The people downloading it from you have not purchased the rights to do so from the original artist, and you have not purchased the rights from the original artist to transmit it.

You could do this of course. Michael Jackson, as was pointed out, is the copyright holder for the Beatles songs. If he wanted to, he could put them up for download online and let everyone have them because he owns the rights to them. And if you had millions of dollars, maybe you could buy them from him and do it yourself.

So that's how it works. Hope that makes sense.

[goatdan]

I don't think anybody is forcing us to buy videogames. No one here *needs* videogames to live off of.

LOL

I of course agree completely... I just find it funny that the guy on the forums named "video_game_addict" said it!

[Eternal Champion]

I see. So it's OK for me to charge 100 bucks for something that's out-of-print that originally cost, say, 25 bucks, from which the copyright holder got a few bucks from one sale? I guess I see something fishy about that.

EDIT: I've been thinking and the part I'm missing is that once you buy the CD or game or whatever, it's your property and you can sell it or whatever. Carry on.

[jajaja]

But here's the problem with that line of thought in copyright law -- if it becomes legal for anyone to get them, then anyone can also take that property and use it for their own use. So downloading Super Mario Brothers 1, 2 and 3 for a NES emulator would be legal, but so would be using them on a disc for the Xbox 360 from Microsoft.

Ye, true. But I dont see the diffrence if you play it on a NES emu or using them for Xbox 360 (or whatever console that can emulate NES games). As long as you dont make money on it (mind, Im talking about old stuff thats out of print, not new stuff).

Still, if it was legal to download if you didnt make money on it wouldnt affect the makers/copyrightholders to make money on it. If they want to re-print or re-release the same games for new console that shouldnt be a problem.

This will most likely never happend tho, but still, I think its idiotic that you should get punished for downloading old ROMs that either the copyrightholder(s) or makers have taken of the marked years ago and it would never be released again.
Mind, there is a diffrence of downloading the original NES ROM of i.g Ice Climber and downloading the GBA classic release ROM, which is still sold, even if it is the same game.

[Doonzmore]

Yes, it's "illegal", hands up who HASN'T downloaded a ROM at some point here


*Raises hand* :D

[Predatorxs]

For what I know most artists doesnt make much on album sales. The record company takes alot of the money. They make most on conserts etc. But that is another discussion.

I wouldn't go that far, they do make some good numbers touring etc, but royalty cheques do also make up a good amount of there yearly income. Anyways.....

And the whole rom thing is lost on me, i'm not a user of them really ( once in while i might hit up KOF 98, 99, 01 - since i sold off my AES collection :( ), i'd rather just play the real thing, and it doesn't feel the same playing snes, nes or geny stuff on a PC?!

..Mike

[jajaja]

What I ment is that the artists make most money on conserts etc, not the record companies :) What I know atleast. Just wanted to make that clear.

[kevin_psx]

Stealing a game from my apartment
Stealing a game from Nintendo
Don't see a difference. You are taking someone else's property

- and yes 0's and 1's are property. Like stealing a song. Depriving the artist of his/her sweat & labor & income. Dude you're high. For one, the individual who stole your games was not stealing anything from the copyright holders. They stole something from you. It's a terrible analogy and you should drop it.Tired from lack of sleep - yes - but not high. Don't even drink alcohol.




worth repeating -

If you download Mario 64x4 - instead of buying it - Nintendo has lost $20-30 of income. What Nintendo creates with the labor of their collective body - is their Property. And you stole the product of their sweat/labor. Why is the concept in bold so hard to understand? It's so simple. That idea is nearly 400 years old.

[kevin_psx]

(holds up copies of Megaman Collection, Sonic Collection, Link to the Past GBA cart)

According to some of ye - we should not own these collections. We should go download them for free. Quote: "Nintendo/Sega don't get hurt if we download Megaman/Sonic/Zelda roms."

Why do you endorse this behavior?

[Avenger]

Taking something that is not yours is illegal...some of you ppl needs to stop flipping out and making up crazy theorys. It is irrelivent how old a game is, your stealing it if its 10 years old, or 2 weeks old.

Stealing is stealing, a company probably won't give you a hard time if you take a NES or SNES game...but technically its still stealing, its not yours.

Weither or not you'll get in trouble legally, no, you most probably won't get in trouble no matter what roms or burnt games you have, they don't have time to deal with you.

Its Illegal, enough said guys.

[Tanis178]

$60 for a Jag? even your own website doesn't have it that cheap LOL

[jajaja]

(holds up copies of Megaman Collection, Sonic Collection, Link to the Past GBA cart)

According to some of ye - we should not own these collections. We should go download them for free. Quote: "Nintendo/Sega don't get hurt if we download Megaman/Sonic/Zelda roms."

Why do you endorse this behavior?

As far as I can see I havnt seen anyone who have said that Nintend/Sega shouldnt sell these game because they are old. And those collections might still be the same games, but they are not for old consoles and that is something completely diffrent. These games are for currentgen consoles and are still being sold.

I see what point you are trying to make, but this belongs to another discussion. Here we are talking about old ROMs, not just the games. You cant make a ROM of Mega Man Anniversary and Sonic Collection, it would then be a image.

This discussion was about if it was legal or illegal. As the law says (atleast the US law) its not legal to download old ROMs. So that point should be clear by now. But as someone mentioned earlier, just because its illegal doesnt nessesseraly mean its wrong.

[goatdan]

$60 for a Jag? even your own website doesn't have it that cheap LOL

We sell them for $65.00.

Can you find one for $60 if you look hard enough? Yes. In fact, I bet you could get one for less than $50 if you looked hard enough.

I paid $25.00 for my first Jaguar. New. 1996.

I paid $25.00 for my second Jaguar. Used. 1999.

I paid $28.00 for my third. Used. 2005.

Deals can be had if you're willing to wait long enough for them. I wasn't hard pressed to get that third Jaguar, so I paid less. If you really want one, paying $65 for it from me isn't bad.

You still don't have any real points, you realize.

[Damion]

You relize this whole argument is about as useful as man boobs right? RIGHT!?

[Garry Silljo]

Man Boobs?! I could use some of those!

[Tanis178]

just to add the the jag post, you haven't factored in shipping, cd add-on, memory cart, extra controller not to mention games. it's a collectors market out there, and casual gamers can't spend the resources like i've heard collectors can and will commit for a used system with few games.

no one here disputes the possible shadiness of roms, but you can't separate it from taping tv shows or radio, or even downloading pdf files of books and magazines, and if it's a case where the rich enjoy and the poor go without then society has really sunken to a new low. there's no replacement for genuine games on actual hardware with original controllers, but look at a country like china, where the cost of a game is more than an average family's monthly income, and i for one don't blame them for piracy because everyone should have the opprotunity to enjoy games as much as we do, corporate BS and people with self-righteous ignorant attitudes ruin it for others when there is money involved and everyone suffers because there's no middle ground.

this is my last post on this topic i feel like it's slipping into a industry vs. the people topic where laws and finance are placed above people's freedoms and best interests, too many Jack Thompson fans here....

[kevin_psx]

(holds up copies of Megaman Collection, Sonic Collection, Link to the Past GBA cart) According to some of ye - we should not own these collections. We should go download them for free. Quote: "Nintendo/Sega don't get hurt if we download Megaman/Sonic/Zelda roms."

Why do you endorse this behavior? As far as I can see I havnt seen anyone who have said that Nintend/Sega shouldnt sell these game because they are old.


????? Not what I said. Some say we should steal Nintendo/Sega's games - not buy them. See yourself:
Downloading roms =/= someone stealing personal property.

Fine. Will go download Link to the Past and all the Megaman games - rather than buy re-releases currently on shelves - and play the ROMS on my PC illegally. Since you say "it's not stealing" - I should feel no moral guilt.

/end sarcasm

[jajaja]

(holds up copies of Megaman Collection, Sonic Collection, Link to the Past GBA cart) According to some of ye - we should not own these collections. We should go download them for free. Quote: "Nintendo/Sega don't get hurt if we download Megaman/Sonic/Zelda roms."

The way you say it here (or atleast how i understand it) you say that Nintendo/Sega shouldnt re-release old games and sell them because someone here said that old ROMs should be free.
So why shouldnt u you own those collection? No one have said that Nintendo/Sega shouldnt sell these games for new consoles. I dont see what you mean here.

[kevin_psx]

When you learn to comprehend English let me know. I said -



"According to some of ye - we should not buy Link to the Past, Sonic, Megaman, or other re-releases sitting in stores."

"According to some of ye - we should go download the illegal ROMS of LTTP, Sonic, Megaman - and not give any money to Sega/Nintendo."

How can you not understand these 2 simple sentences???? O_O

[jajaja]

Oh.. so you turn to namecalling? How sad. That just ruins the discussion
First of all you said this:


we should not own these collections

You didnt say pay, you said own. Thats 2 diffrent things. So maybe I am the one who shall say come back when you can read..
And if you download the ROM or buy the game used (only way, because they arent sold by Nintendo/Sega anymore) you wont give Nintendo/Sega any money anyway. This might be illegal according to the US law, but still, Nintendo/Sega doesnt make any money if you buy the original game used or download it.

[petewhitley]

Stealing a game from my apartment
Stealing a game from Nintendo
Don't see a difference. You are taking someone else's property

- and yes 0's and 1's are property. Like stealing a song. Depriving the artist of his/her sweat & labor & income. Dude you're high. For one, the individual who stole your games was not stealing anything from the copyright holders. They stole something from you. It's a terrible analogy and you should drop it.

Tired from lack of sleep - yes - but not high. Don't even drink alcohol.

worth repeating -

If you download Mario 64x4 - instead of buying it - Nintendo has lost $20-30 of income. What Nintendo creates with the labor of their collective body - is their Property. And you stole the product of their sweat/labor. Why is the concept in bold so hard to understand? It's so simple. That idea is nearly 400 years old.

Ok, last time. They are both against the law. However, copyright violations and material theft are vastly different crimes, and have vastly different legal consequences. The law recognizes this, most of the board members here recognize this, and yet you don't. Hopefully it's ingnorance and not unintelligence.

[kevin_psx]

Yes. Understand they are different crimes. But both - are - crimes. We should not download Megaman 6 or Sonic 3 ROMs. These games are in the store - readily available for purchase as PS2 Retro-Collections.

Downloading Roms is a different kind of theft from jacking someone's box of games - yes - i agree - but still theft. Still immoral. Still wrong.

For people to sit here and say - "Downloading Megaman 6 or Sonic 3 is okay. Not wrong. Don't waste your money buying the Retro Collections" - is unbelievable. Don't comprehend it.


Oh.. so you turn to namecalling?

Show me where - in my last post - where I called you a name? go ahead. you can not 'cause I did not.



And if you download the ROM (only way, because they arent sold by Nintendo/Sega anymore)

???? Link to the Past/Megaman/Sonic are available in stores as GBA and PS2 re-releases. Where'd you get they're not sold anymore?

On shelves. For sale. There's no excuse for downloading.

[jajaja]

When you learn to comprehend English let me know

This. Maybe the word namecalling wasnt the right word to use here, but it was a negative thing towards me.

Im talking about the original game, not some re-release. Ive mentioned that alot of times. You cant deny what I said is not true. Nintendo/Sega wont make any money if you want to buy the original game or download the ROM. Only way you can buy the original game is used.
And you mention very few titles, what about the rest 3000++ games? How are you supose to get them and make Nintendo/Sega profit?

[suppafly]

I guess it isnt pircy if you own the original carts...its a grey area..

[kevin_psx]

Im talking about the original game, not some re-release. Ive mentioned that alot of times.

Okay. Fair. But - does downloading let you play the original game? No. You're playing an emulated/inaccurate version - not the original - and you're playing it on PC - not the orginial hardware.

Where's justification for downloading Megaman 6 or Sonic 3? You're not playing the original. You're playing a clone. A port.

[goatdan]

just to add the the jag post, you haven't factored in shipping, cd add-on, memory cart, extra controller not to mention games. it's a collectors market out there, and casual gamers can't spend the resources like i've heard collectors can and will commit for a used system with few games.

What casual gamers do you know that really want to play the Jaguar?

And if they did, you are stating that someone couldn't spend $100.00 on it if they wanted to?

Last I check, and video_game_addict said this best, games are a hobby, not a lifestyle. You do not NEED that Tempest 2000 ROM to survive. Hell, if my house burned down and every game I owned was gone, I would not die because of it.

The argument of "it isn't fair to have to pay more money" is completely and utterly pointless. As I've said to other comments in this thread, there are reasons I can understand and appreciate. But complaining that it is too expensive or won't come complete for a fair price? That's a stupid way to justify stealing to yourself. I guess it's fine if that's the way you do it, but you should probably justify it in a different way.


no one here disputes the possible shadiness of roms, but you can't separate it from taping tv shows or radio, or even downloading pdf files of books and magazines, and if it's a case where the rich enjoy and the poor go without then society has really sunken to a new low.

Wow. Do you actually believe this stuff? That playing a ROM is akin to taping a television show? If you missed it, this has been proven to be legal unlike stealing ROMs.

By the way, I think that downloading a PDF from an illegal source is just as wrong as stealing a ROM.


there's no replacement for genuine games on actual hardware with original controllers, but look at a country like china, where the cost of a game is more than an average family's monthly income, and i for one don't blame them for piracy because everyone should have the opprotunity to enjoy games as much as we do, corporate BS and people with self-righteous ignorant attitudes ruin it for others when there is money involved and everyone suffers because there's no middle ground.

"corporate BS and people with self-righteous ignorant attitudes ruin it for others..."

If this was really true, gaming would be run 100% by hippies and all games would be open source. But then there would never be consoles. And in turn, the games that we see today wouldn't be made.

I'm sorry, but Konami isn't going to spend millions making Metal Gear Solid 4 just to let everyone download it. If having that game made means that "everyone suffers"... God help us.


this is my last post on this topic i feel like it's slipping into a industry vs. the people topic where laws and finance are placed above people's freedoms and best interests, too many Jack Thompson fans here....

laws and finance above people's freedoms... and what point do the makers of things have their own interests. I don't know if you're a homeowner, but lets pretend you are -- and you built your home. Just because you have a house, and I don't, does that give me the right to move in and stay there for free?

Your argument states that yes, it would be horribly unfair and against the best interests of "freedom" if you denied entry to anyone into your house. My argument is that you own the house, and you can decide to let in everyone for free, a couple people, just you or not even let yourself in. What is more fair to the person that built the house?

[petewhitley]

Downloading Roms is a different kind of theft from jacking someone's box of games

I think we're in agreement now. My qualm was when you said:



Stealing a game from my apartment
Stealing a game from Nintendo
Don't see a difference.

Similar in that they're both against the law. Different in that they are not the same type of theft.

[Arqueologia_Digital]

Donwload the Roms you want, enjoy them, and don't worry about the feds kicking in your door.
Very clever words...

Matías

[jajaja]

Im talking about the original game, not some re-release. Ive mentioned that alot of times.

Okay. Fair. But - does downloading let you play the original game? No. You're playing an emulated/inaccurate version - not the original - and you're playing it on PC - not the orginial hardware.

Where's justification for downloading Megaman 6 or Sonic 3? You're not playing the original. You're playing a clone. A port.

Depends on how you see it :) A ROM is taken directly from the original. But I was quoting what you said earlier.


"According to some of ye - we should go download the illegal ROMS of LTTP, Sonic, Megaman - and not give any money to Sega/Nintendo."

Nintendo dont make money on the original games/media anymore because they stopped selling it. So downloading the ROM or buy it used will result in the same thing, Nintendo/Sega wont get any money.

But we can discuss this for days. I see many of your points, but I wouldnt compare stealing a physical item with downloading an old ROM. If you mean that its ok with me, but I dont mean the same.

[Eternal Champion]

Nintendo dont make money on the original games/media anymore because they stopped selling it. So downloading the ROM or buy it used will result in the same thing, Nintendo/Sega wont get any money.
I have to admit I'm still hung up on this point. Bionic Commando for NES, for example: if I buy it secondhand, which is the only way to get it, my money goes to the seller, who bought it from somebody who bought it from somebody else, and so on, back to the person who bought it originally. One sale that generates a profit to Nintendo and Capcom, the rest don't. So, as my buying of it would give the publishers absolutely nothing, I guess I don't see it as earth-shatteringly wrong that I download the ROM.

I see we keep going around in circles in this thread. I wouldn't make it in copyright law, that's for sure.

[kevin_psx]

Where's justification for downloading Megaman 6 or Sonic 3? You're not playing the original. You're playing a clone. A port.

"According to some of ye - we should go download the illegal ROMS of LTTP, Sonic, Megaman - and not give any money to Sega/Nintendo."

Nintendo dont make money on the original games/media anymore because they stopped selling it.


This statement is in error. Nintendo is selling emulated ROMs of Megaman. Sega is selling emulated ROMs of Sonic. They run on modern consoles/PCs.

Imho we should buy these emulated ROMs from Nintendo/Sega - since they are selling them. Don't you agree?

[jajaja]

Im not sure if Nintendo copied over the old ROMs of Mega Man and made an emulator so it would work on PS2/Xbox/GC or if they took the original code and recoded it so it would work on the new consoles. I own both the PS2 and Xbox version of Mega Man Annivesary collection and I dont look at it as I bought the ROMs. But I see your point.

Mega Man and the classics series such as donkey kong, zelda 1 & 2, ice climber etc might be discussed, but there are.. god knows how many NES/Famicom games that will never be re-released.

[goatdan]

god knows how many NES/Famicom games that will never be re-released.

Thus my opinion that if you haven't used the game in any way in 20 years, it becomes public domain at that point.

Of course, that is my opinion and not grounded in anything legal.

[kevin_psx]

Worth repeating -
Nintendo is selling emulated ROMs of Megaman. Sega is selling emulated ROMs of Sonic. They run on modern consoles/PCs.

Imho we should buy these emulated ROMs from Nintendo/Sega - since they are selling them. Don't you agree?

I don't care if people download out-of-print stuff like Elite or the Last Ninja - but when the Emulated ROMs of Pitfall, Yars Revenge, Sonic, and Megaman are sitting on the shelf then you should not be stealing. You should be buying & supporting Atari/Acitivsion/Nintendo/Sega's retro-collections.

It's the moral thing to do.

imho

[Red Hedgehog]

I have to admit I'm still hung up on this point. Bionic Commando for NES, for example: if I buy it secondhand, which is the only way to get it, my money goes to the seller, who bought it from somebody who bought it from somebody else, and so on, back to the person who bought it originally. One sale that generates a profit to Nintendo and Capcom, the rest don't. So, as my buying of it would give the publishers absolutely nothing, I guess I don't see it as earth-shatteringly wrong that I download the ROM.

I see we keep going around in circles in this thread. I wouldn't make it in copyright law, that's for sure.

At this point, it gets into legal technicalities. Since copyright law was first conceived (around the invention of the printing press), there has been a clause known as the "first sale" doctrine. This basically says that once a person legally buys a copyrighted work, they are allowed to give it away (in whole, in part, modified) as they wish. Of course, this was originally intended for books and is logically applied to such materials that have a physical medium. So, a cartridge, which contains copyrighted material, would act the same as a book.

On the other hand, one thing copyright law was intended to protect against was non-copyright holders making copies of others' works. The holder of a copyright has the sole right to decided how their work is distributed (or, at least, the first sale of it) and so, someone else can't start printing books they don't hold the copyright to, whether they are selling them or giving them away. This is the analog to making copies of software that has been more-or-less applied today.

So basically, in the case where someone gives away a copyrighted work and in the case where someone makes a copy of a copyrighted work, the original copyright holder makes no money. However, in the latter case, a person is increasing the number of copies in existence and using the copyrighted work in a manner that the original copyright holder did not intend (or allow).

This above was all the purely legal/philosophical side. One can make arguments that if say, the only copies of Bionic Commando are those on NES cartridges, then Capcom will make more money by releasing a PS2 collection containing Bionic Commando. I don't know that I agree with that argument, but economics has never been my strong suit.

In general, I think copyright laws attempt to enforce the right thing - that the holder of the copyright has the ability to make money from it and thus people will be encouraged to make and share copyrighted works. There are provisions of some copyright laws that I do not like (the DMCA, for example, but I also think it is overvilified - most people, including corporate lawyers, don't really understand what it provides for), but on the whole I agree with them. On the other hand, I don't really have a problem with people infringing copyright if the holder is not available to or has no intention to make use of its copyrighted material. If you want to play the English version of Earthbound Zero, then doing so with a ROM through an emulator seems like the only way that will ever happen, so go right ahead. If you want to play A Link to the Past, do it through the SNES cartridge or the GBA version.

[LocalH]

Just like with many modern issues, you have people on both extremes who mold the argument to support their pre-existing viewpoint. Here are some facts (and you can also replace "ROM" with "disc image" and "cart copier" for "modchip"):

Emulation is legal.

A cart copier is legal.

Downloading ROMs for carts you already own may technically be illegal, but is not immoral - you legally own the game, how you get the ROM is only a matter for the intricacies of law, and will make no practical difference.

Downloading ROMs for carts you don't own is illegal, and depending on the situation may or may not be immoral, depending on whether or not the original copyright holder still exists, or if the rights were transferred to another entity - this would be determined on a case-by-case basis.


Point being, if I own a cart, then it is fully legal to run that game on an emulator. Period. This is the legal perspective combined with the practical knowledge that you WILL NOT GET IN ANY TROUBLE WHATSOEVER if you buy an LttP cart then download an LttP ROM.

[Chronodriftersx]

Man Boobs?! I could use some of those!

Is this considered illegal?
LOL

[cyberfluxor]

I'll simply say this:
Should it be illegal for Resale shops to sell used titles from older and newer systems? Because last time I remember, they don't give credit to the author for selling a used game.

About 95%+ of my games were bought used so should I be arrested or put to shame for not contributing to a bunch companies for their works through sales? And what makes a difference if I downloaded ROMs instead of buying 2nd hand?... It keeps places like GameStop, EBgames, and pawn shop/used game stores open, not the publishers.

So basically, where I stand is unless companies get royalties on shops reselling used games, then those shops are just as bad as pirates except they are selling the real deal. Downloading a ROM more or so likely hurts those resale shops because cheapskates won't buy a high costing new title.

BTW, for reference, yes I do have tens of thousands of ROMs, which I don't play rather they are archives. I save them for if someone wants me to review a game, screenshots/sound bytes are needed, or other misc things. Otherwise I buy the games if they are a good deal to me :)

[Icarus Moonsight]

I'll simply say this:
Should it be illegal for Resale shops to sell used titles from older and newer systems? Because last time I remember, they don't give credit to the author for selling a used game.

About 95%+ of my games were bought used so should I be arrested or put to shame for not contributing to a bunch companies for their works through sales? And what makes a difference if I downloaded ROMs instead of buying 2nd hand?... It keeps places like GameStop, EBgames, and pawn shop/used game stores open, not the publishers.

So basically, where I stand is unless companies get royalties on shops reselling used games, then those shops are just as bad as pirates except they are selling the real deal. Downloading a ROM more or so likely hurts those resale shops because cheapskates won't buy a high costing new title.

BTW, for reference, yes I do have tens of thousands of ROMs, which I don't play rather they are archives. I save them for if someone wants me to review a game, screenshots/sound bytes are needed, or other misc things. Otherwise I buy the games if they are a good deal to me :)

Circular logic at it's finest. There is so much wrong with your pattern of thought I don't know where to begin. In fact, it's so completely disconnected from any form of rationale that it would be an excercise in futility to counter-point your post.

Stay in school kids... for the love of god and country please stay in school. Even if you have to take the short bus... OK?

#1 problem facing humanity today... the shortage of people capable of critical thinking.

**GONG**