3 ms·

Tell me you're an IP lawyer without telling me you're an IP lawyer: > Here Cifaldi clearly acknowledges that emulation is a powerful means of piracy that has d

by senko 2y ago

Tell me you're an IP lawyer without telling me you're an IP lawyer: > Here Cifaldi clearly acknowledges that emulation is a powerful means of piracy that has done irreparable damage to the intellectual property rights of game developers. That's some serious mental gymnastics, man.

WillPostForFood 2y ago
old games became the domain of the pirates, so people started thinking of games the same way we were thinking of MP3s in the Napster days, where it’s just like “music’s free now, who cares?” Does it really take mental gymnastics to read the above quotation that way?
- senko 2y ago
  The part you cut from the quote actually gives it the opposite meaning: emulation was demonized so only the people who were okay with piracy considered it. Going from that to "emulation caused irreparable harm to developers" takes some chutzpah.
add-sub-mul-div 2y ago
It's not mental gymnastics to say that the people who use emulation can be divided into groups who would have and who would not have otherwise paid for a game. There is damage done, despite all the people who only use emulation ethically. Even the people who only pirate games that are no longer for sale could end up withholding money from the industry because their gaming needs are met by the quasi-piracy. You can disagree with him, but smugly pretending he doesn't have a point is disingenuous.
- trinsic2 2y ago
  Nope sorry. There is no data that supports that. We are mostly talking about emulation to play games that are no longer playable that are considered abandonware. Copyright was meant to be a short limit so an organization or individual can profit and then the work gets put into the public domain. There is no god given right to maximize profits beyond 5 or 10 years a most. The whole 95 year thing is a sham meant to prevent creative works from entering into the public domain.
- senko 2y ago
  By the same arguments: People who live can also be divided into groups who would have and who would not have paid for a game. There is damage done, despite all the people who only live ethically. Even the people who do something else (than buying a game that can't be bought) could end up withholding money from the industry because their gaming needs are met by something else. That's not an argument for why "something else" is bad. It's ridiculous.

by senko 2y ago

WillPostForFood 2y ago

old games became the domain of the pirates, so people started thinking of games the same way we were thinking of MP3s in the Napster days, where it’s just like “music’s free now, who cares?” Does it really take mental gymnastics to read the above quotation that way?

senko 2y ago
The part you cut from the quote actually gives it the opposite meaning: emulation was demonized so only the people who were okay with piracy considered it. Going from that to "emulation caused irreparable harm to developers" takes some chutzpah.

add-sub-mul-div 2y ago

It's not mental gymnastics to say that the people who use emulation can be divided into groups who would have and who would not have otherwise paid for a game. There is damage done, despite all the people who only use emulation ethically. Even the people who only pirate games that are no longer for sale could end up withholding money from the industry because their gaming needs are met by the quasi-piracy. You can disagree with him, but smugly pretending he doesn't have a point is disingenuous.

trinsic2 2y ago
Nope sorry. There is no data that supports that. We are mostly talking about emulation to play games that are no longer playable that are considered abandonware. Copyright was meant to be a short limit so an organization or individual can profit and then the work gets put into the public domain. There is no god given right to maximize profits beyond 5 or 10 years a most. The whole 95 year thing is a sham meant to prevent creative works from entering into the public domain.
senko 2y ago
By the same arguments: People who live can also be divided into groups who would have and who would not have paid for a game. There is damage done, despite all the people who only live ethically. Even the people who do something else (than buying a game that can't be bought) could end up withholding money from the industry because their gaming needs are met by something else. That's not an argument for why "something else" is bad. It's ridiculous.