3 ms·

MAME is likely ok but the ROMs of course not even if you pretend to be a museum. It's just tolerated by owners of the copyrights: + they don't know how to mak

by rvnx 5y ago

MAME is likely ok but the ROMs of course not even if you pretend to be a museum. It's just tolerated by owners of the copyrights: + they don't know how to make money with it anyway because nobody wants to pay for it (except with physical arcade machines). + it can support the license credibility (e.g. Pac-Man). + the copyright owners may not be around anymore. Generally it's just not strategic to sue. "it's legal to distribute pirated copies of games if it's to preserve them", is a bit like the Disclaimer here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Privacy_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Privacy_Act

tinus_hn 5y ago
There was some kind of rule that allows The Internet Archive to maintain (but not distribute) data that it has acquired without the party the data came from having a license to copy it to them. I don’t remember the name but as far as I remember it was tested in court.
mrandish 5y ago
> "it's legal to distribute pirated copies of games if it's to preserve them" Perhaps you meant to reply to the poster I was replying to. To be clear, I would never say nor imply "it's legal to..." <anything>, as predicting the legality of some specific scenario is essentially impossible with any degree of confidence. Even expert lawyers, judges and law school professors are frequently incorrect in such predictions. In the U.S. legal system, what is and isn't "legal" varies wildly based on the particular jurisdiction, context, defendant, plaintiff, defense, prosecution, judge, jury, etc involved. And even predicting a given ruling (guilty/not guilty) doesn't tell us on what specific counts, how they were charged or what the sentence or damages may be nor any possible settlements or appeals. Intellectual property law in general and copyright in particular is notoriously complex, nuanced and situational. Especially so for civil actions. That's why I was so careful in my post not to state any opinion regarding legality at all. I only noted that exemptions like "fair use" exist and some copying in some situations is permitted. The answer to anything else is both a) "it depends", and b) "it's complicated."

by rvnx 5y ago

tinus_hn 5y ago

There was some kind of rule that allows The Internet Archive to maintain (but not distribute) data that it has acquired without the party the data came from having a license to copy it to them. I don’t remember the name but as far as I remember it was tested in court.

mrandish 5y ago

> "it's legal to distribute pirated copies of games if it's to preserve them" Perhaps you meant to reply to the poster I was replying to. To be clear, I would never say nor imply "it's legal to..." <anything>, as predicting the legality of some specific scenario is essentially impossible with any degree of confidence. Even expert lawyers, judges and law school professors are frequently incorrect in such predictions. In the U.S. legal system, what is and isn't "legal" varies wildly based on the particular jurisdiction, context, defendant, plaintiff, defense, prosecution, judge, jury, etc involved. And even predicting a given ruling (guilty/not guilty) doesn't tell us on what specific counts, how they were charged or what the sentence or damages may be nor any possible settlements or appeals. Intellectual property law in general and copyright in particular is notoriously complex, nuanced and situational. Especially so for civil actions. That's why I was so careful in my post not to state any opinion regarding legality at all. I only noted that exemptions like "fair use" exist and some copying in some situations is permitted. The answer to anything else is both a) "it depends", and b) "it's complicated."