6 ms·

Emulators are a tricky one because they often require a BIOS file which does break copyright.

by laumars 11y ago

JoshTriplett 11y ago
No more so than the games, and some emulators have reimplemented BIOSes.
- laumars 11y ago
  > No more so than the games It goes without saying that copying games is illegal. Well, bar a few caveats which seldom apply to people who run emulators. > some emulators have reimplemented BIOSes I'm sure some do but many don't - hence my point.
  - JoshTriplett 11y ago
    > It goes without saying that copying games is illegal. Well, bar a few caveats which seldom apply to people who run emulators. Obtaining ROMs for games you own may or may not be, depending on your jurisdiction; in any case, it seems entirely ethical to have ROMs for games you own. Likewise for BIOSes.
    - stinkytaco 11y ago
      I'm just going to play devil's advocate here, just for the sake of discussion, not because I believe it or not, but I think you could argue that obtaining ROMs for games you own is not ethical. The "phase shifting" argument is never one that held much water legally and certainly the industry would argue that if you want to use the content in a different form (i.e. an emulator), that you should pay for that additional right. It is a copy, after all. In the same way that the music industry would argue you can't upgrade all your vinyl records to mp3 without paying again. For example, should I be able to get Photoshop for all available platforms just because I happen to own one copy? This, of course, brings us into the thorny world of whether copyright even makes sense in the software business. Copying seems to be an essential part of using a computer (copying runtimes into memory, caching web pages to your computer, etc.) so it may be an outmoded way of thinking about protecting IP.
      - JoshTriplett 11y ago
        > In the same way that the music industry would argue you can't upgrade all your vinyl records to mp3 without paying again. The music industry would love it if you had to pay for music multiple times, but you can nonetheless rip your own CDs. Or vinyl records with the right equipment.
        stinkytaco 11y ago
        >The music industry would love it if you had to pay for music multiple times, but you can nonetheless rip your own CDs. Or vinyl records with the right equipment. You can, but it's not legal, at least not in the United States. It's never really been litigated, but a reading of law would seem to say it's not legal. There's no "personal use" or "personal backup" clause in the law. It's a copy, and copying is not OK outside of the "fair use" bounderies outlined in section 117 (there's also some provisions for libraries and archives, but those don't apply to individuals). Legality is really tangential to the point, however. The question is that for any given work, whether that's a book, piece of music, game, etc, do you "own" that work seperate from the physical media you purchased it on. Can you obtain a ROM, a copy of the book or a copy of the record in question legally in perpetuity because you bought it in one form once?
        JoshTriplett 11y ago
        Recording a film from TV is copying as well, but that was litigated all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled that it was legal. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios%2C_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Unive.... , AKA "Sony v. Betamax". That seems like a fairly clear precedent. Also see Sony v. Connectix for a somewhat related case regarding emulation and BIOSes. In that case, Connectix obtained copies of Sony's BIOS as part of reverse-engineering it (though they didn't distribute BIOS images with their emulator), and that was ruled legal. That seems like an even clearer precedent, specifically discussing emulation, as well as copying, for commercial purposes even. Now, it is fairly clear that sites hosting ROMs for download are violating copyright law. Then again, so is the Internet Archive, and I'd bet the majority of people on HN agree with what archive.org does. > Legality is really tangential to the point, however. The question is that for any given work, whether that's a book, piece of music, game, etc, do you "own" that work seperate from the physical media you purchased it on. Can you obtain a ROM, a copy of the book or a copy of the record in question legally in perpetuity because you bought it in one form once? Personal opinion, not based on any particular country's copyright law or precedent (though there is some precedent): personal copying without redistribution should always be OK. It's distribution that copyright should cover. (That's separate from my opinions on how copyright law ought to be changed.)
    - laumars 11y ago
      ethics != law

Emulators are a tricky one because they often require a BIOS file which does break copyright.

by laumars 11y ago

Emulators are a tricky one because they often require a BIOS file which does break copyright.

JoshTriplett 11y ago

No more so than the games, and some emulators have reimplemented BIOSes.

laumars 11y ago
> No more so than the games It goes without saying that copying games is illegal. Well, bar a few caveats which seldom apply to people who run emulators. > some emulators have reimplemented BIOSes I'm sure some do but many don't - hence my point.
- JoshTriplett 11y ago
  > It goes without saying that copying games is illegal. Well, bar a few caveats which seldom apply to people who run emulators. Obtaining ROMs for games you own may or may not be, depending on your jurisdiction; in any case, it seems entirely ethical to have ROMs for games you own. Likewise for BIOSes.
  - stinkytaco 11y ago
    I'm just going to play devil's advocate here, just for the sake of discussion, not because I believe it or not, but I think you could argue that obtaining ROMs for games you own is not ethical. The "phase shifting" argument is never one that held much water legally and certainly the industry would argue that if you want to use the content in a different form (i.e. an emulator), that you should pay for that additional right. It is a copy, after all. In the same way that the music industry would argue you can't upgrade all your vinyl records to mp3 without paying again. For example, should I be able to get Photoshop for all available platforms just because I happen to own one copy? This, of course, brings us into the thorny world of whether copyright even makes sense in the software business. Copying seems to be an essential part of using a computer (copying runtimes into memory, caching web pages to your computer, etc.) so it may be an outmoded way of thinking about protecting IP.
    - JoshTriplett 11y ago
      > In the same way that the music industry would argue you can't upgrade all your vinyl records to mp3 without paying again. The music industry would love it if you had to pay for music multiple times, but you can nonetheless rip your own CDs. Or vinyl records with the right equipment.
      - stinkytaco 11y ago
        >The music industry would love it if you had to pay for music multiple times, but you can nonetheless rip your own CDs. Or vinyl records with the right equipment. You can, but it's not legal, at least not in the United States. It's never really been litigated, but a reading of law would seem to say it's not legal. There's no "personal use" or "personal backup" clause in the law. It's a copy, and copying is not OK outside of the "fair use" bounderies outlined in section 117 (there's also some provisions for libraries and archives, but those don't apply to individuals). Legality is really tangential to the point, however. The question is that for any given work, whether that's a book, piece of music, game, etc, do you "own" that work seperate from the physical media you purchased it on. Can you obtain a ROM, a copy of the book or a copy of the record in question legally in perpetuity because you bought it in one form once?
        JoshTriplett 11y ago
        Recording a film from TV is copying as well, but that was litigated all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled that it was legal. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios%2C_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Unive.... , AKA "Sony v. Betamax". That seems like a fairly clear precedent. Also see Sony v. Connectix for a somewhat related case regarding emulation and BIOSes. In that case, Connectix obtained copies of Sony's BIOS as part of reverse-engineering it (though they didn't distribute BIOS images with their emulator), and that was ruled legal. That seems like an even clearer precedent, specifically discussing emulation, as well as copying, for commercial purposes even. Now, it is fairly clear that sites hosting ROMs for download are violating copyright law. Then again, so is the Internet Archive, and I'd bet the majority of people on HN agree with what archive.org does. > Legality is really tangential to the point, however. The question is that for any given work, whether that's a book, piece of music, game, etc, do you "own" that work seperate from the physical media you purchased it on. Can you obtain a ROM, a copy of the book or a copy of the record in question legally in perpetuity because you bought it in one form once? Personal opinion, not based on any particular country's copyright law or precedent (though there is some precedent): personal copying without redistribution should always be OK. It's distribution that copyright should cover. (That's separate from my opinions on how copyright law ought to be changed.)
  - laumars 11y ago
    ethics != law