5 ms·

That's just piracy in the name of a technically interesting project. And just because everyone has ripped of nintendo it doesn't make this one a legit use of it

That's just piracy in the name of a technically interesting project. And just because everyone has ripped of nintendo it doesn't make this one a legit use of it. That could be a perfect additional business for nintendo using their IP... in fact you can buy still some nintendo classics on the modern Nintendo Switch and I am not sure whether they work online or not but that's their choice. A different debate would be whether the biggest icons in the popular culture should become public domain in shorter time (e.g. 30 years) so that the whole society would benefit of it, including people who believes that these characters are part of an era or a symbol more than just private intelectual property.

PostOnce 8y ago
Have you really ripped them off if you already bought the game in the 80s? Should you have to buy it on a new platform to play it again, if your computer is perfectly capable? Should you have to buy ROM dumping equipment? What's the difference? I'd bet most people just want to play their long-lost favorites, which they already bought once, long ago.
- nudpiedo 8y ago
  You are mixing pears with rocks. I never bought a NES or these ROMs and I can still play them in this webpage. Also that just because you bought the original product it doesn't give you a livetime access to other future products or a license to rebrand and refurbish them. I believe this kind conversation is soon full of hypocrites who would be the first defensors of IP concept if the object of debate was their own IP... in case they could produce something profitable/valuable which is a major key point (it is easy to give for free the work from others).
  - derefr 8y ago
    > I never bought a NES or these ROMs and I can still play them in this webpage. That is no argument. This website would be entirely above-board with one simple change: it buys N copies of each game, and ensures that only N people are playing at a time. That makes it, legally, a library. Libraries already make "digital loans"; and libraries already loan out game discs. This would just combine the two. If you're disputing the legality of any part of that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine > it doesn't give you ... a license to ... refurbish them. Yeah, maybe not in the US, yet. But it's really a thing people believe should be there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronics_right_to_repair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronics_right_to_repair > hypocrites who would be the first defensors of IP concept if the object of debate was their own IP No, this debate comes from people like 4am, who has de-protected 40-year-old abandonware games by defunct companies (https://archive.org/details/apple_ii_library_4am&tab=about https://archive.org/details/apple_ii_library_4am&tab=about) for the sake of allowing people to play them at all in the future, because if nothing is done, the disks will soon rot and no copies will be left in existence. The developers and publishers of these games frequently come to 4am and thank him for de-protecting these games. Because they never thought they'd see them again. That is not the stance of someone who resents having "their IP" shared with the world.
    - navjack27 8y ago
      I know it's not directly translatable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aereo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aereo An antenna for everyone wasn't enough. How could "buying a copy for x" be enough.
- drysart 8y ago
  That's a moot argument. You may have a right to own a ROM because you own the original hardware the ROM was extracted from. But that's an entirely different matter than whether they have the right to distribute a copy of it to you.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- np_tedious 8y ago
  Do games (or any software) ever go into public domain? Feels like something on the order of 25 years could be reasonable for NES.
  - detaro 8y ago
    Same as other copyrighted works: in the US 95 years after publication (or 120 years after creation if shorter), when it is work for hire without clear authors attached, otherwise 70 years after the death of the last author. So expect copyright on NES games to expire late in the 21th century or early 22th.
- SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
  It's a valid argument, but I personally never had a NES and don't legally own any of these games. How do developers of these projects make sure Nintendo get what's due from people like me? I'm quite happy to pay as long as the money is going to the right place. I wouldn't buy one of those Raspberry Pi arcade things on ebay that just profit from shamelessly ripping off others' work.
- cuckcuckspruce 8y ago
  If you bought "Pyromania" from Def Leppard in 1983 on vinyl should the record company (who may be out of business, or switched owners, or may not own the copyright anymore) have to provide you a digital copy on iTunes/Google Play to put on your iPhone/Android phone even if your computer is perfectly capable of digitizing your vinyl? How is that different from the NES example you laid out above?
sehugg 8y ago
Nintendo has gone one step further, and comes very close to making the dangerous argument that emulators are illegal (based on a generous interpretation of https://www.nintendo.com/corp/legal.jsp https://www.nintendo.com/corp/legal.jsp -- though IANAL) Of course, this is nonsense. There is no patented technology or trade secrets in any of these older platforms. Unless it contains software (the NES does not contain a BIOS or any other code) then there is nothing to protect. I operate a site that teaches people how to develop homebrew games for 8-bit platforms -- using no copyrighted code -- and this argument from Nintendo is worrying. When someone tells you who they are, believe them.
derefr 8y ago
> piracy Under the original copyright terms, or really any "reasonable to the man on the street" copyright terms, NES games would have been in the public domain long ago. You'd be able to distribute the ROMs freely. > perfect additional business for nintendo Nintendo are creating a "classic games" subscription service for the Switch, and indeed, one of the features of these games is that they've been rewritten to support online multiplayer. But there's a reason Nintendo are doing this (rewriting the games to support multiplayer), and a reason Nintendo released the NES Classic (a bundle product): it's because the IP by itself wasn't selling any more. On the Wii U and 3DS, these classic games were available via the Virtual Console service. But, AFAIK, most of such published VC games were negative-ROI after the re-QAing and marketing costs were taken into account. People just weren't buying standalone NES titles. And yes, this might be "because of piracy", but only in the most vague and abstract sense. Many people knew that they could play whatever old NES game they wanted on a computer. Many others, though, just still owned a NES and the requisite games; or owned any of those games' later ports on newer consoles. The IP—in its precise form—was "played out." People who own Star Wars on LaserDisc don't need to buy Star Wars on VHS: there isn't any improvement, it's just another release of the same material. But—like the NES Classic—a Star Wars boxed set of VHSes might be interesting. And—like the Switch's new subscription classic-games service—a Star Wars Blu-Ray remaster would be an improvement. One is a new product that is different in kind; and the other is, actually, entirely new IP, derived from the old IP. Do note that—assuming the old IP had entered the public domain—this service, which uses the old IP together with modified virtual "hardware" to create an online multiplayer effect, would be perfectly above-board, even though it competes with Nintendo's new derived IP. It isn't itself a pirate copy of the new derived IP, so it's fine. > whether the biggest icons in the popular culture should become public domain Actually, "icons" (trademarks) don't have limited terms at all; they're perpetual. But once a work is no longer under copyright, you can then distribute that work all you like, even if it contains trademarked characters. You can't make new or derivative works that feature said character (or logo, or any other kind of trademark) in such a way that it might be misconstrued that the work was created by the trademark owner, but that's it. You can use the original work however you like. Everyone knows who made it, and you're not creating confusion by distributing it yourself, because it's not a modified version. You're just doing the same thing a store does, giving people a copy of the thing someone else made. This is why satirical caricatures of trademarked characters are fine: nobody is going to think political-cartoon-Mario was created by Nintendo. But this is also why e.g. the movie Wreck-It Ralph still had to license the trademarked characters it used: they're using them as-is, in a way where the brand cachet of the characters makes the movie money.
davvolun 8y ago
For the U.S. copyright was originally intended to last 14 years, with one 14 year renewal possible. The Constitution states the purpose is "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Unless you're arguing video games are not "useful Arts", it seems to me most copyright law nowadays is actually suppressing the Progress of Science and useful Arts -- Mickey Mouse is de facto never going to enter the public domain. Just imagine if literally anyone could create Kingdom Hearts for example. People would buy that, it would likely create competition to create the best "Kingdom Hearts" and it would stimulate the economy. The only argument against is that Disney/Square-Enix deserve that money -- which was not the originally intention of copyright!

PostOnce 8y ago

Have you really ripped them off if you already bought the game in the 80s? Should you have to buy it on a new platform to play it again, if your computer is perfectly capable? Should you have to buy ROM dumping equipment? What's the difference? I'd bet most people just want to play their long-lost favorites, which they already bought once, long ago.

nudpiedo 8y ago
You are mixing pears with rocks. I never bought a NES or these ROMs and I can still play them in this webpage. Also that just because you bought the original product it doesn't give you a livetime access to other future products or a license to rebrand and refurbish them. I believe this kind conversation is soon full of hypocrites who would be the first defensors of IP concept if the object of debate was their own IP... in case they could produce something profitable/valuable which is a major key point (it is easy to give for free the work from others).
- derefr 8y ago
  > I never bought a NES or these ROMs and I can still play them in this webpage. That is no argument. This website would be entirely above-board with one simple change: it buys N copies of each game, and ensures that only N people are playing at a time. That makes it, legally, a library. Libraries already make "digital loans"; and libraries already loan out game discs. This would just combine the two. If you're disputing the legality of any part of that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine > it doesn't give you ... a license to ... refurbish them. Yeah, maybe not in the US, yet. But it's really a thing people believe should be there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronics_right_to_repair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronics_right_to_repair > hypocrites who would be the first defensors of IP concept if the object of debate was their own IP No, this debate comes from people like 4am, who has de-protected 40-year-old abandonware games by defunct companies (https://archive.org/details/apple_ii_library_4am&tab=about https://archive.org/details/apple_ii_library_4am&tab=about) for the sake of allowing people to play them at all in the future, because if nothing is done, the disks will soon rot and no copies will be left in existence. The developers and publishers of these games frequently come to 4am and thank him for de-protecting these games. Because they never thought they'd see them again. That is not the stance of someone who resents having "their IP" shared with the world.
  - navjack27 8y ago
    I know it's not directly translatable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aereo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aereo An antenna for everyone wasn't enough. How could "buying a copy for x" be enough.
drysart 8y ago
That's a moot argument. You may have a right to own a ROM because you own the original hardware the ROM was extracted from. But that's an entirely different matter than whether they have the right to distribute a copy of it to you.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
np_tedious 8y ago
Do games (or any software) ever go into public domain? Feels like something on the order of 25 years could be reasonable for NES.
- detaro 8y ago
  Same as other copyrighted works: in the US 95 years after publication (or 120 years after creation if shorter), when it is work for hire without clear authors attached, otherwise 70 years after the death of the last author. So expect copyright on NES games to expire late in the 21th century or early 22th.
SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
It's a valid argument, but I personally never had a NES and don't legally own any of these games. How do developers of these projects make sure Nintendo get what's due from people like me? I'm quite happy to pay as long as the money is going to the right place. I wouldn't buy one of those Raspberry Pi arcade things on ebay that just profit from shamelessly ripping off others' work.
cuckcuckspruce 8y ago
If you bought "Pyromania" from Def Leppard in 1983 on vinyl should the record company (who may be out of business, or switched owners, or may not own the copyright anymore) have to provide you a digital copy on iTunes/Google Play to put on your iPhone/Android phone even if your computer is perfectly capable of digitizing your vinyl? How is that different from the NES example you laid out above?

sehugg 8y ago

Nintendo has gone one step further, and comes very close to making the dangerous argument that emulators are illegal (based on a generous interpretation of https://www.nintendo.com/corp/legal.jsp https://www.nintendo.com/corp/legal.jsp -- though IANAL) Of course, this is nonsense. There is no patented technology or trade secrets in any of these older platforms. Unless it contains software (the NES does not contain a BIOS or any other code) then there is nothing to protect. I operate a site that teaches people how to develop homebrew games for 8-bit platforms -- using no copyrighted code -- and this argument from Nintendo is worrying. When someone tells you who they are, believe them.

derefr 8y ago

> piracy Under the original copyright terms, or really any "reasonable to the man on the street" copyright terms, NES games would have been in the public domain long ago. You'd be able to distribute the ROMs freely. > perfect additional business for nintendo Nintendo are creating a "classic games" subscription service for the Switch, and indeed, one of the features of these games is that they've been rewritten to support online multiplayer. But there's a reason Nintendo are doing this (rewriting the games to support multiplayer), and a reason Nintendo released the NES Classic (a bundle product): it's because the IP by itself wasn't selling any more. On the Wii U and 3DS, these classic games were available via the Virtual Console service. But, AFAIK, most of such published VC games were negative-ROI after the re-QAing and marketing costs were taken into account. People just weren't buying standalone NES titles. And yes, this might be "because of piracy", but only in the most vague and abstract sense. Many people knew that they could play whatever old NES game they wanted on a computer. Many others, though, just still owned a NES and the requisite games; or owned any of those games' later ports on newer consoles. The IP—in its precise form—was "played out." People who own Star Wars on LaserDisc don't need to buy Star Wars on VHS: there isn't any improvement, it's just another release of the same material. But—like the NES Classic—a Star Wars boxed set of VHSes might be interesting. And—like the Switch's new subscription classic-games service—a Star Wars Blu-Ray remaster would be an improvement. One is a new product that is different in kind; and the other is, actually, entirely new IP, derived from the old IP. Do note that—assuming the old IP had entered the public domain—this service, which uses the old IP together with modified virtual "hardware" to create an online multiplayer effect, would be perfectly above-board, even though it competes with Nintendo's new derived IP. It isn't itself a pirate copy of the new derived IP, so it's fine. > whether the biggest icons in the popular culture should become public domain Actually, "icons" (trademarks) don't have limited terms at all; they're perpetual. But once a work is no longer under copyright, you can then distribute that work all you like, even if it contains trademarked characters. You can't make new or derivative works that feature said character (or logo, or any other kind of trademark) in such a way that it might be misconstrued that the work was created by the trademark owner, but that's it. You can use the original work however you like. Everyone knows who made it, and you're not creating confusion by distributing it yourself, because it's not a modified version. You're just doing the same thing a store does, giving people a copy of the thing someone else made. This is why satirical caricatures of trademarked characters are fine: nobody is going to think political-cartoon-Mario was created by Nintendo. But this is also why e.g. the movie Wreck-It Ralph still had to license the trademarked characters it used: they're using them as-is, in a way where the brand cachet of the characters makes the movie money.

davvolun 8y ago

For the U.S. copyright was originally intended to last 14 years, with one 14 year renewal possible. The Constitution states the purpose is "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Unless you're arguing video games are not "useful Arts", it seems to me most copyright law nowadays is actually suppressing the Progress of Science and useful Arts -- Mickey Mouse is de facto never going to enter the public domain. Just imagine if literally anyone could create Kingdom Hearts for example. People would buy that, it would likely create competition to create the best "Kingdom Hearts" and it would stimulate the economy. The only argument against is that Disney/Square-Enix deserve that money -- which was not the originally intention of copyright!