Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 35

Thread: Do all systems become public domain 20 years later?

  1. #1
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    4,364
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default Do all systems become public domain 20 years later?

    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.

  2. #2
    ServBot (Level 11)
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Columbus/OHIO
    Posts
    3,070
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default Don't think so.

    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

  3. #3
    Pretzel (Level 4) JJNova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Clarksville TN USA
    Posts
    949
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nintendo
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by some lawyer dude online
    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).
    Quote Originally Posted by Mary Bellis @ About.com
    Unlike copyrights or patents, trademark registration rights can last indefinitely if the owner continues to use the mark to identify goods or services.


  4. #4
    Great Puma (Level 12) NE146's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    4,879
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default Re: Do all systems become public domain 20 years later?

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony1
    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.

  5. #5
    Key (Level 9)
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,988
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    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 each mistake being made is a new one, then progress is being made."

  6. #6
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    721
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

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

  7. #7
    drowning in medals Ed Oscuro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    16,556
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JJNova
    Quote Originally Posted by Mary Bellis @ About.com
    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.

  8. #8
    Pac-Man (Level 10) smork's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    新浦安
    Posts
    2,471
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    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.

  9. #9
    Kirby (Level 13) Griking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    5,548
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    All these responses and yet I'm still confused.

    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?

  10. #10
    Key (Level 9) chrisbid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,819
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    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)

  11. #11
    drowning in medals Ed Oscuro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    16,556
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Griking
    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).

  12. #12
    Cherry (Level 1) GameSlaveGaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    over there, somewhere
    Posts
    372
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    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.
    ~Gaz~

    "Video games develop hand-eye coordination and turn children into better human beings!" ~ Professor Membrane on Invader ZIM"

    Animal Crossing Info:
    Town: Odnetnin
    Name: Gaz
    Code: 0730-7620-4738
    Fruits: Pears, Peaches
    Gates Open: Random

  13. #13
    drowning in medals Ed Oscuro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    16,556
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GameSlaveGaz
    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!

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

  14. #14
    Red (Level 21) Jorpho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    We're all mad here
    Posts
    13,554
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Oscuro
    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.

    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.

    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.

    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).
    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?
    "There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." --Bertrand Russel (attributed)

  15. #15
    Key (Level 9) chrisbid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,819
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    [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?[/quote]


    yup, congress keeps giving them what they want, and the supreme court allowed it

  16. #16
    Cherry (Level 1) Red Hedgehog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    213
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    [quote=chrisbid]
    Quote Originally Posted by "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?[/quote


    yup, congress keeps giving them what they want, and the supreme court allowed it
    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.
    "Dost thou love me?" "No" "But thou must!"

    My Video Game Journal

  17. #17
    drowning in medals Ed Oscuro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    16,556
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Default

    [quote="Jorpho"]
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Oscuro
    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.

    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)

    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).

  18. #18
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    4,364
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    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.

  19. #19
    Key (Level 9) chrisbid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,819
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    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.

  20. #20
    drowning in medals Ed Oscuro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    16,556
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony1
    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.

Similar Threads

  1. Exidy went public domain?
    By Jorpho in forum Classic Gaming
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 01-13-2020, 08:42 AM
  2. Replies: 44
    Last Post: 10-26-2013, 01:13 AM
  3. FS: 27 Years of Videogames! Most Systems
    By DaveD in forum Buying and Selling
    Replies: 417
    Last Post: 06-12-2010, 11:21 PM
  4. Public Domain?
    By MikeF in forum Classic Gaming
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-01-2004, 02:56 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •