8 ms·

Except this work can be done once, stored somewhere and shared. Take a ROM (it means read-only after all) and get native port out...

by speps 2y ago

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Hamuko 2y ago
Shared legally?
- TehCorwiz 2y ago
  You can share the prepared binary because it contains no trace of the rom. The rom is still required to play the game.
  - GuB-42 2y ago
    I wouldn't count on it, it is still derivative work and I am sure the licences for the games forbid this. Some companies may let it slide, but Nintendo is known to be aggressive about their intellectual property. And you will probably have a hard time arguing that it doesn't promote piracy. You can't get "ROMs" officially. You have to extract them from the cartridge with specialized equipment, or maybe in some other way, but it is not as simple as reading from a CD. It means that most people will simply get them from illegal sources. With an emulator, you can say it is for "homebrews", but if you recompile a commercial game, you can't use this argument.
    - immibis 2y ago
      Nintendo hasn't been taking down any projects that can't work without a ROM input. They'll change that eventually, but for now they are not. You can't share a modified ROM but you can share binary patches.
    - derefr 2y ago
      > You can't get "ROMs" officially. You have to extract them from the cartridge with specialized equipment, or maybe in some other way, but it is not as simple as reading from a CD. Nintendo has, in fact, sold the public ROMs before (and I don't just mean custom emulator executables wrapping ROM payloads that get delivered encrypted onto DRMed consoles.) Specifically, I'm talking about the NES Classic and SNES Classic. These little boxes use multi-image emulators, rather than Nintendo's usual approach of a customized single-image emulator for each game. And the ROMs used by these systems are just sitting there as files on disk. The disk isn't encrypted, either; nor is the bootloader or kernel integrity-signed; or really anything like that. You don't need to "jailbreak" these things — they act like Android phones, where you can just reboot them into restore mode and plug them into a computer with a USB cable, and see a virtual disk. The "modding tools" for them just drop a new kernel with wi-fi support into their /boot partition! (And you don't even need to go that far to read the ROMs off the rootfs — any Linux PC will work to mount it.) So any DMCA "they used DRM, which means their intent was to license you X, not sell you X" arguments don't apply. They did nothing to stop people from extracting these ROMs. By buying these systems, you're effectively buying "a box full of ROMs" directly from Nintendo (the IP rights-holder for said ROMs), at retail, as a "money for goods" transaction. So now, by the first-sale doctrine, they're your ROMs, and you can do with them as you please. This is true as surely as buying a DVD box-set means you now own those DVDs, and can do with those as you please. (Part up and resell the DVDs individually? Sure, why not!) Or — for perhaps a more interesting example — as surely as buying a stock images or sound-effects library on CD (even second-hand!) implicitly brings with it the IP rights to use those assets in derivative works you create. The primary-market purchaser didn't have to agree to any kind of license terms at point of sale? First-sale doctrine applies to that IP from then on! (Amusingly, Nintendo redistributed exactly such stock-image CD assets embedded into Mario 64 — so their lawyers are double-bound to agree that this particular interpretation of first-sale doctrine should pertain.)
      - anthk 2y ago
        The license of the ROMs it's to play them, not to exploit them.
        2y ago
    - MaxBarraclough 2y ago
      > it is still derivative work I don't think that's right, I think it's essentially considered the same work under copyright law. Apparently compilation doesn't fulfil the criteria of derivative works. https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/6435/ https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/6435/
    - ars 2y ago
      A shrinkwrap license is not a real license. The game is copyrighted, and fair use applies. And if you want to avoid the license just steal it from someone. You never agreed to a license, but you are still required to follow copyright. (I've obviously being a little sarcastic, but license agreements on software are meaningless, even if a company claims they have meaning.)
  - MaxBarraclough 2y ago
    > You can share the prepared binary because it contains no trace of the rom. This is wrong. Please do not confidently present your guesswork as fact. If it were true, copyleft would have no chance of working; binaries compiled from copyleft-licensed source-code would not be subject to the copyleft licence.
- blindstitch 2y ago
  100% legal if you delete within 24 hours.
  - gurchik 2y ago
    Source?
    - Retr0id 2y ago
      That guy's uncle works for Nintendo
  - cauefcr 2y ago
    True in Brazil, is it true anywhere else?
    - thiagoharry 2y ago
      This is not true in Brazil. In Brazil, this is just an urban legend that several sites with ROMs spread in the 90s. By Brazilian law, you cannot download a ROM if you do not own a copy. It is possible that this rumor of 24hs is based in some old law that is not applicable anymore.
- ars 2y ago
  It's legal if the recipient owns the game, it would be covered under fair use for compatibility purposes.
  - ldjb 2y ago
    Note that this is not true in many jurisdictions.
    - Hamuko 2y ago
      Is it in any? Because I don't think just adding a "You need to own the game to download this binary" text to your GitHub repo is going to do a lot legally.

Except this work can be done once, stored somewhere and shared. Take a ROM (it means read-only after all) and get native port out...

by speps 2y ago

Except this work can be done once, stored somewhere and shared. Take a ROM (it means read-only after all) and get native port out...

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

Hamuko 2y ago

Shared legally?

TehCorwiz 2y ago
You can share the prepared binary because it contains no trace of the rom. The rom is still required to play the game.
- GuB-42 2y ago
  I wouldn't count on it, it is still derivative work and I am sure the licences for the games forbid this. Some companies may let it slide, but Nintendo is known to be aggressive about their intellectual property. And you will probably have a hard time arguing that it doesn't promote piracy. You can't get "ROMs" officially. You have to extract them from the cartridge with specialized equipment, or maybe in some other way, but it is not as simple as reading from a CD. It means that most people will simply get them from illegal sources. With an emulator, you can say it is for "homebrews", but if you recompile a commercial game, you can't use this argument.
  - immibis 2y ago
    Nintendo hasn't been taking down any projects that can't work without a ROM input. They'll change that eventually, but for now they are not. You can't share a modified ROM but you can share binary patches.
  - derefr 2y ago
    > You can't get "ROMs" officially. You have to extract them from the cartridge with specialized equipment, or maybe in some other way, but it is not as simple as reading from a CD. Nintendo has, in fact, sold the public ROMs before (and I don't just mean custom emulator executables wrapping ROM payloads that get delivered encrypted onto DRMed consoles.) Specifically, I'm talking about the NES Classic and SNES Classic. These little boxes use multi-image emulators, rather than Nintendo's usual approach of a customized single-image emulator for each game. And the ROMs used by these systems are just sitting there as files on disk. The disk isn't encrypted, either; nor is the bootloader or kernel integrity-signed; or really anything like that. You don't need to "jailbreak" these things — they act like Android phones, where you can just reboot them into restore mode and plug them into a computer with a USB cable, and see a virtual disk. The "modding tools" for them just drop a new kernel with wi-fi support into their /boot partition! (And you don't even need to go that far to read the ROMs off the rootfs — any Linux PC will work to mount it.) So any DMCA "they used DRM, which means their intent was to license you X, not sell you X" arguments don't apply. They did nothing to stop people from extracting these ROMs. By buying these systems, you're effectively buying "a box full of ROMs" directly from Nintendo (the IP rights-holder for said ROMs), at retail, as a "money for goods" transaction. So now, by the first-sale doctrine, they're your ROMs, and you can do with them as you please. This is true as surely as buying a DVD box-set means you now own those DVDs, and can do with those as you please. (Part up and resell the DVDs individually? Sure, why not!) Or — for perhaps a more interesting example — as surely as buying a stock images or sound-effects library on CD (even second-hand!) implicitly brings with it the IP rights to use those assets in derivative works you create. The primary-market purchaser didn't have to agree to any kind of license terms at point of sale? First-sale doctrine applies to that IP from then on! (Amusingly, Nintendo redistributed exactly such stock-image CD assets embedded into Mario 64 — so their lawyers are double-bound to agree that this particular interpretation of first-sale doctrine should pertain.)
    - anthk 2y ago
      The license of the ROMs it's to play them, not to exploit them.
      - 2y ago
  - MaxBarraclough 2y ago
    > it is still derivative work I don't think that's right, I think it's essentially considered the same work under copyright law. Apparently compilation doesn't fulfil the criteria of derivative works. https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/6435/ https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/6435/
  - ars 2y ago
    A shrinkwrap license is not a real license. The game is copyrighted, and fair use applies. And if you want to avoid the license just steal it from someone. You never agreed to a license, but you are still required to follow copyright. (I've obviously being a little sarcastic, but license agreements on software are meaningless, even if a company claims they have meaning.)
- MaxBarraclough 2y ago
  > You can share the prepared binary because it contains no trace of the rom. This is wrong. Please do not confidently present your guesswork as fact. If it were true, copyleft would have no chance of working; binaries compiled from copyleft-licensed source-code would not be subject to the copyleft licence.
blindstitch 2y ago
100% legal if you delete within 24 hours.
- gurchik 2y ago
  Source?
  - Retr0id 2y ago
    That guy's uncle works for Nintendo
- cauefcr 2y ago
  True in Brazil, is it true anywhere else?
  - thiagoharry 2y ago
    This is not true in Brazil. In Brazil, this is just an urban legend that several sites with ROMs spread in the 90s. By Brazilian law, you cannot download a ROM if you do not own a copy. It is possible that this rumor of 24hs is based in some old law that is not applicable anymore.
ars 2y ago
It's legal if the recipient owns the game, it would be covered under fair use for compatibility purposes.
- ldjb 2y ago
  Note that this is not true in many jurisdictions.
  - Hamuko 2y ago
    Is it in any? Because I don't think just adding a "You need to own the game to download this binary" text to your GitHub repo is going to do a lot legally.