5 ms·

If they actually did what this video is suggesting, it's interesting, but there's nothing actually wrong with it. Yes, Nintendo says that third-party emulation

• akjainaj 10y ago
  Exactly, I don't see the problem here. It's their intellectual property, they can do whatever they want with it. Just because somebody else dumped it from a cartridge and uploaded it, doesn't mean they own any kind of copyright or anything--Nintendo still does.
  • lightedman 10y ago
    There's code in there that Nintendo didn't write and thus doesn't own. The .NES header which tells the machines how to set up the machine state. Basically, this means Nintendo is selling code it didn't write and has no authorization to resell. Doesn't matter if the game is theirs or not, the specific code added which they are using for virtual console is not their property.
    • detaro 10y ago
      That's a 16 byte header which contains configuration flags describing the hardware of the cartridge and which target should be emulated, that's hardly "code" or copyrightable. https://wiki.nesdev.com/w/index.php/INES#iNES_file_format https://wiki.nesdev.com/w/index.php/INES#iNES_file_format
      • lightedman 10y ago
        Somebody had to come up with that originally so that everyone else would follow the format. BTW, your preferred data source is horribly lacking. No mention of NESticle in the popular emulators? No mention that the first NES emulator (where this header comes from/was made for) was a COMMERCIAL emulator? I think you need to pick a better source for your data.
        • detaro 10y ago
          That somebody had to come up with the format does not mean they have any rights on or over files using that format. Not sure why it would be relevant that iNES is commercial either.
        • eridius 10y ago
          By your argument, the person who created the JPEG format now owns all JPEGs.
          • lightedman 10y ago
            No, by my argument, they own the FILE FORMAT. Did Nintendo create the .NES header required for emulators to work with their games? No? Then where is their legal license to commercially use that header data which they did not create?
            • deleted 10y ago
              [deleted]
            • eridius 10y ago
              No, nobody owns the file format. When applicable, file formats are protected by patents, not copyrights, but you can't actually even patent a file format, any relevant patent would be on algorithms used to encode the data that is then used in the file format (and that's not applicable here).
              • lightedman 10y ago
                I said NOTHING about the file format being owned. The code inside, the header which EVERY EMULATOR USES, is the unique thing, and can be protected. By the way, every ROM ripping tool explicitly states "Non-commercial purposes" so Nintendo still violates a specific licensing limitation by using a ROM made using those tools, whether they own the property or not. Any way you try twisting this argument, you're going to lose, hard. Source: I own patents, have successfully defended my IP in court, and I actually read those little things that nobody else apparently does that LEGALLY puts restrictions upon the software use.
    • akjainaj 10y ago
      I'm not familiar with that header, but by the sound of it, it sounds like it would be sort of a C struct with info about the ROM, not code. Isn't it possible that, if Nintendo had written the header in the ROM they're selling, it would be exactly the same as any other ROM dump from out there?
      • wmil 10y ago
        No. There's a string to identify the header in the file then a series of bit flags. You wouldn't create an identical header by accident Nintendo either downloaded the ROM or used pirate tools to make it.
        • eridius 10y ago
          Or they just re-used the format because it already exists and works perfectly well. Don't forget, the "format" in question is just a 16-byte header, it's trivial enough that it would actually be more effort to come up with a brand new format (with absolutely no benefit) than to just re-use the existing 16-byte header definition.
• kosma 10y ago
  Suppose the person who illegally ripped the ROM also altered it in some way. Does this constitute derivative work, with that person holding partial copyright to the result? Or does the illegal copying preclude such possibility?
  • detaro 10y ago
    If it is complex/original enough to qualify then generally yes, the person modifying also has rights on the result. A typical example would be a translation of a text. EDIT: apparently this is not true for the US, I briefly checked but apparently missed something, my bad. It is for example in Germany.
    • pjlegato 10y ago
      No, legal derivative works can only be made with the authorization of the copyright holder[1]. The question was specifically about an unauthorized derivation. Creating any unauthorized derivative work is illegal and thus ineligible for copyright protection, including the preparation of unauthorized translations (other than under fair use exemptions such as for news reporting, research, or scholarly purposes).[2] [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106 [2] http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/copy-corner73.htm http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/copy-corner73.htm
      • detaro 10y ago
        Just saw your other comment and edited, apparently I didn't check thoroughly enough for the US (Here in Germany the permission isn't needed in most cases. Without permission you can't do much with your derivative work afterwards of course)
      • dragonwriter 10y ago
        As I understand it, there are two different issues, copyright in the derivative work, and legality of the act of creating the derivative work. Copyright of a derivative work that itself meets the standard for copyrightability rests with the creator of the derivative, because, under law, any copyrightable work has a copyright that belongs to the creator at the moment it is created. A derivative created without proper permission is also a violation of the copyright of the original, but that's a separate issue.
• drcode 10y ago
  There's nothing legally wrong with it, but it's hypocritical for them to benefit from services provided by hobbyists while at the same time vilifying those hobbyists.
  • TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
    Indeed, the wrong here is from a moral perspective, not legal. Although, well… a ROM may be a derivative of an illegal copy of Nintendo's original work, but does that prevent copyright nonetheless applying to the derivative? If it doesn't, then there's probably a threshold-of-originality thing applying (the header is tiny and its content obvious), but I do wonder.
    • flycaliguy 10y ago
      I don't see any moral fault in taking a file which has robbed the company of significant yen and then using it to save a bit of yen.
• mistercow 10y ago
  I generally agree, but then there's the matter of lying about it. Why do that, if they're in the right? I think the answer is that there are some subtle ways that doing this sends a message they don't want to send. Like, for example, that the illegal emulation community facilitated the existence of Virtual Console. That's a bad message for their point of view, because it legitimizes the idea that ROM sharing serves the archival purpose that some of its proponents claim it serves. And that's a legitimate point. So what's wrong with what they've done is nuanced, but I think it's definitely there.
  • eridius 10y ago
    Maybe they're not lying. Or, alternatively, maybe a contractor was responsible for this (even the video suggests this explanation), and simply told Nintendo they didn't download the ROM.
  • lucideer 10y ago
    Lying about it makes perfect sense from a reputational perspective. Just because they're right legally, doesn't mean they'll be perceived to be in the right morally by potential customers. They would profiting from other people's voluntary labour. That fact that labour might have been performed illegally, in violation of Nintendo's intellectual rights, won't detract from that fact for many.
• raverbashing 10y ago
  I wonder what was the license of the original emulator. There might be a violation there as well
  • eridius 10y ago
    I don't think you understand. ROMs aren't emulators. They're just a copy of the game. You need an emulator to run the ROM. Nintendo has an emulator. They didn't steal their emulator. They probably built it in-house, but even if they licensed it (which they probably didn't), that's perfectly legal.
    • raverbashing 10y ago
      > I don't think you understand. No, I understand it perfectly > You need an emulator to run the ROM. Nintendo has an emulator. They didn't steal They're using an emulator which reads a certain format of ROM file, as demonstrated. That would not be necessary if they wrote their own emulator
      • eridius 10y ago
        Yes it would. There needs to be some format for the file that the emulator can read. Nintendo could have made up their own brand new format, but why bother when the iNES format already exists and works perfectly well? Also worth pointing out, the format in question is just a 16-byte header, the rest of the file is data dumped from the cartridge and would be the same regardless of the format involved.
• jbmorgado 10y ago
  Well, as an analogy. 1 - You are a painter 2 - someone says makes a copy of one of your paintings 3 - That's wrong you say 4 - you take the copy and sign your name at the bottom 5 - you sell the copy to someone else See the thing is, copyright for something that takes basically zero effort to copy (like digital goods), soon enters in these kind of loopholes. If Nintendo policy was: "ROM dumping is wrong IF you don't own the original cartridge", well, I could be on Nintendo side. But Nintendo policy is: "ROM dumping is wrong, period! There will be no discussion about it!" Then, they actually become hypocrites if they use a ROM dumping from a 3rd party.
  • eridius 10y ago
    If someone photocopies your painting, it's indistinguishable from a photocopy that you yourself made. And if you get one of the copies that someone else made, you still own the copyright to the work and it's perfectly fine for you to sell it. You could have made the copy yourself, you just didn't bother because someone else gave you a copy they made. That's the same thing here. For all we know, Nintendo actually did dump the ROM themselves. The evidence suggesting they downloaded it from the internet is all circumstantial. But even if they didn't, they could have done so, and since they own the copyright to the game, it's perfectly reasonable for them to sell the ROM, however it was actually obtained.
    • jbmorgado 10y ago
      You are conveniently skipping the part of the analogy where you just sign the photocopy and sell it as your painting.
      • eridius 10y ago
        ..because it is your painting.