just curious, but how many people here are into emulation. For those of you who don't know what that is, it's downloading games from old systems like snes, gb, nes, neo geo, etc... (i've even played a ps2 rom) and playing them straight from your computer. It's created to help keep the old classics (and the RPGs only japan got) from dieing. But it hasn't recieved much publicity from companies, especially nintendo, nintendo claimed that they were stealing sales from games that wern't even being sold anymore.

Emulation? I still have my actual SNES, GB, NES, etc (but no neo geo) all set up and ready to play, and I still do now and then.

And I think Nintendo has sufficiently shot down the "but they don't sell them anymore" theory. After years of people claiming NES games were fair game for that reason, Nintendo proved them wrong with the E-Reader cards and Animal Crossing. Nintendo still has a viable market for those old games, so in fact emulation could be stealing sales.

Both Atari and Activision have also been selling their old 2600 games on compilations for years.

I personally think everyone is making a bit mistake trying to kill emulation, but it doesn't matter how much they bash emulation, it'll never die.

I don't think anyone has actually purchased animal crossing for the nes games inside it. Go ahead and prove me wrong.

Still, so long as they have the rights to sell and whatever those games, they could make ports, packs, remakes and special editions at any time. Even if in theory, they would sell just as well, it could still have the psychological effect of 'Everyone who would get this, already has it, or will get it through emulation anyway. Lets not bother.'

This might just boarder on bad topic, since you're asking how many people here play with pirated console games...

While true a good amount of those games you will have a great deal of trouble finding, more and more new games are being released free in this manner. I'm sure it would be argued that most people who would download these games wouldn't buy them in the first place, I have to semi agree. They wouldn't buy them, because they know they can get them free. I'm pretty sure there is a big enough chunk of those people who would otherwise purchase to make a differance, though...

*looks at a large bug on his wall...* Wonder what that is. Long black beetle thing. Hmmn.

Well, back on topic. I was really into them three or four years ago. I wasn't even old enough to get a job yet though. Maybe a paper route. But I had one of those before. Horrible, horrible job. I'll never deal directly with customers again :p

Uhmn... I wonder how many people exploit the popularity of emulators to make demos of their game for people to play. I've heard the 'I only use them to see if I like the game' excuse, well, it's a point I'm sure everyone here can understand. I guess It may not be that viable from a shareware standpoint to make demos for it.

*looks again* That bug hasn't moved at all.

Sega is selling Saturn games along with an emulator for use with fast PC:s in Japan. All their "sonic classics" collections for Gamecube etc are also emulators, bought from hobby emulator makers. I believe Animal Crossing also contains an emulator for running these NES games. So the "big companies" do know about and use emulation, they use it for their own purposes :)

Emulator writing is one of the most rewarding things you can do with a computer IMHO.. it's so addictive getting another, and another game to work on your own little virtual game console you've made yourself :). For anyone interesting in learning how emulators work, check out the tutorials at http://www.goldroad.co.uk .

Too bad there's not many legal ways to make money from emulators :)

There are other problems with non-emulated games as well. My NES controllers are all but dead and I really haven't a clue where to pick up new ones. I've gone through a handful of Genesis machines (bad luck I guess.. they up and died for no particuarly good reason) and I'm just fortunate that I've had roommates and friends with spares. While I might be able to find some replacements on ebay now and again, I suspect that won't always be the case.

Some cart games have batteries, and when those buggers die it's a sad day. The batteries do last for like a decade or more (amazingly) but I have a couple dead batteries now and I'm not going to go opening up my game to replace them.

Finally, there are some fairly elite gamepads for the PC which really make the whole gameplay experience better. Oh sure it's "nostalgic" to use that old NES of Genesis gamepad (as long as they still work reliably) but it sure doesn't hurt to have a nice new gamepad at your disposal.

Of course, this is all in reference to emulating games which you have legal ownership of, which is indeed legal at this point and time (although Nintendo still frowns on it). Obviously the temptation to download roms for games you don't own once you have the emulator is simply irresistable...

And sure, it is also pretty true that most of those games you aren't going to find for sale in the Bargain Bin at Electronics Boutique or even on E-Bay most of the time. But to Nintendo that's a moot point: Ultimately they have the right to deny us, the customer, of the privlidge of buying or owning any new copies of any game at any time, and so just because NES games are old and "out of print" doesn't make it ok to copy them... ever. Legally we have to accept Nintendo's decision to stop producing those games and well.. go buy and play their new games instead. That's the legal ownership right, and the reasons for the stop in production is not important, legally speaking.

For the record, my roommate made some recent 'new' NES / Genesis game purchases, a couple from E-Bay and a couple from obscure retail stores that had lost inventory (a music store and a vcr repair store). These include:
Castlevania 3 (unopened) Crystalias (complete, but opened) River City Ransom (unopened) Faxanadu (complete, but opened) Phantasy Star 2 & 3 & 4 (used, no boxes)- Air

I used to be very into the whole rom scene years ago, but dumped them all when I stopped dealing with warez. These days I just buy the games I want. Sure, it takes a little effort, but that's half the fun as far as I'm concerned. As others have said already, the argument that ROMs don't cost the publishers sales is a moot point now that there are so many greatest hits packs out there. Maybe it's because I've always seen piracy as a black and white issue, even when I was into it. It's either a stolen copy, or it's not. Sure, it's easier to justify having a game that is so rare that you have trouble even finding a rom/iso/crack of it online, but it's still piracy.

In the end, I never played my roms because playing them on a 36 inch TV is much better, and the cross console emulators aren't all that good.

personally, I wish someone would rewrite the copyright laws such that a company *has* to make something available (within a certain period of time) to maintain control of it.

And some of them do - look at Nintendo, how many times have they included the original Mario Bros game as a bonus in another game? :) Or brought back a whole bunch of old games from the SNES days onto the GBA? I think that's great.

But when you've written to a company desperately trying to acquire a ten year old title and been told that they don't have any copies, they're not going to GET any copies, they're never going to release it again, they wouldn't support a copy if you could find one, and you are politely invited to kiss their ass and buy their new game in an entirely new genre that you don't like.... Well, *you* may say this is a black and white issue, but I disagree with you. :)

Making the concept of abandonware actually legal instead of self-justification would be great for all the preservation projects etc where people are holding onto stuff that honestly *is* no longer wanted/supported by the copyright owner (ISTR reading some very unhappy people holding onto ancient film reels that are literally disintegrating before the copyright runs out)... and it wouldn't prevent people from keeping their copyright control as long as they were actually *using* it.

People should just let me write laws. It would make so much more sense.

... Say, is this a soapbox here?

Originally posted by papillon
But when you've written to a company desperately trying to acquire a ten year old title and been told that they don't have any copies, they're not going to GET any copies, they're never going to release it again, they wouldn't support a copy if you could find one, and you are politely invited to kiss their ass and buy their new game in an entirely new genre that you don't like.... Well, *you* may say this is a black and white issue, but I disagree with you. :)

Making the concept of abandonware actually legal instead of self-justification would be great for all the preservation projects etc where people are holding onto stuff that honestly *is* no longer wanted/supported by the copyright owner (ISTR reading some very unhappy people holding onto ancient film reels that are literally disintegrating before the copyright runs out)... and it wouldn't prevent people from keeping their copyright control as long as they were actually *using* it.

I hear ya, I've gone through extreme measures trying to find certain games. The Lost Files of Sherlock Holmes: Case of The Serrated Scalpel comes to mind as a game I had a lot of trouble getting ahold of it (this was before Underdogs mind you), whether illegally or legally. Isle of the Dead is even more difficult to find (it doesn't even have an entry at Underdogs). But, the companies who own the rights to those games have not made them available, is it right? No, I agree that they should make them available, even in download only form for like $5 or something. But, it's still illegal. Not saying I think people should go to jail if they manage to find a copy of IOTD for download, but they shouldn't kid themselves by saying they're not breaking a law.

A couple years ago a couple friends of mine made Zork 1 available for play through an online interface. One of them went so far as to incorporate it into his 404 error page. Well, one of the guys went a bit further and made Zork 2 and 3 available as well since those games were available for free download from Activisions website. Believe it or not he got a letter from their lawyers telling him to take down his site. A few conference calls to Activision producers and lawyers later and we discovered that they were looking into making an online Zork game and one of the components was online versions of previous Zork games. In the end, they were the holders of the rights to the games and could do what they wanted with it, many times when people say that a company has completely given up on a franchise they aren't privy to other stuff going on inside the company. If people download all the emulated games they want they might be less likely to buy some greatest hits collection that comes out down the road, or they might not be as compelled to buy a new game that bundles an older version of the same game (the Xbox version of Spy Hunter).

Activision is usually quite friendly about letting people use parts of the Zork universe in freeware game projects, as long as you ask them. Although putting up the entirety of the original games might be a bit much. :) And they do, every now and then, make copies of the ancient text adventures available for sale. The interactive fiction community loves them.

... But this is wandering way off topic.

They're bootleg games. Everyone who deals with bootleg games draws a different line, for example:

"I only copy games for systems that are not in development anymore."

"I only trade games but selling them or making money is wrong."

"I collect them but will not trade them out. That way I'm not distributing."

"If I can find the game for sale I'll buy it, but if I can't I'll copy it"


See, these are all "different lines in the sand" (to help people sleep at night, I imagine) but they're all fall on the side of bootlegging.


~hanford

Originally posted by CJustin
I don't think anyone has actually purchased animal crossing for the nes games inside it. Go ahead and prove me wrong.


I can't prove you wrong on that. But look at SNES games and the Gameboy Advance. Many SNES games have been ported to it almost verbatim after we thought the SNES was gone for good. And more are being ported. In some cases the GBA ports are going for 30 bucks.

Originally posted by CJustin
I don't think anyone has actually purchased animal crossing for the nes games inside it. Go ahead and prove me wrong. It wouldn't surprise me if they never intended people to buy the game for the nes games inside. It doesn't change the fact that the game probably sold more copies because it had nes games. The key to selling a game in the console market is to get people to hear about the game and to get people talking about it, you can sell no end of crap games this way. Animal Crossing certainly generated a lot of talk (not that I ever saw a copy).

I didn't even know Animal Crossing had NES games in it. I was quite confused at first as to what you guys were even talking about. Apparently that news flash didn't make it my way.

If the game companies really cared about destroying emulation I would've been caught a long time ago. I have new realeased GBA roms, I have roms for ps games, I have n64 roms, I have everything.

DragonKeeper, are you trolling or bragging?

I believe in the original spirit of copyright law. Copyright law as it stands is perverted and destroys the original intent of copyright, which was to supply an incentive for people to create (by guaranteeing a (relatively short) amount of time where they were given a monopoly to commercially exploit their "intellectual property"). The fact that the period of time was intentionally short meant that the intellectual property would soon enter the public domain, where it would then be available to everyone. The fostering of a rich public domain was a large part of the original intention of copyright law.

Unfortunately, these days copyright ownership has been extended to ludicrously long periods, and is now used as a tool to destroy and genrally impoverish the public domain. And is actually used to STOP people from gaining access to creative works which companies have no intention of ever allowing to see the light of day again. The people who originally came up with the concept of copyright would be horrified by the way it is abused these days.

So, emulating dead systems and distributing ROMs for them may be illegal in the present political climate - but only because the law has been corrupted and perverted. From a moral standpoint, I believe emulation and ROM dumping provides a valuable service in enriching our culture and preserving our cultural heritage for future generations. Financially speaking, from the corporate perspective it's not really very different from buying a second-hand copy of an old cartridge - the copyright owners don't see any money from this either - and don't forget Nintendo would like to see the sale of second-hand games made illegal too!

It's not wrong to disobey an unjust law. Just don't get caught.

I'm not planning on getting caught, I dought I will though, In my opinion I dont' think the people stoping emulation care enough to go all out to really do anything.

Originally posted by Anthony Flack
I believe in the original spirit of copyright law.

There are other laws designed from the ground up to protect software from piracy. DMCA for one. You can't hang the rationalization of priacy on the copyright law alone. don't think that just becuase copyright law came before these other laws that it's the only law to consider.

The fact that the period of time was intentionally short meant that the intellectual property would soon enter the public domain, where it would then be available to everyone. The fostering of a rich public domain was a large part of the original intention of copyright law.

It's flawed though, becuase you cannot walk into a bookstore and get public domain stories for free -- you still gotta pay for it (even under the original copyright law). However, you can walk into your local library and check out books still under US copyright for free. So on one side, you have "public domain" matieral you have to pay for in order to own, and on the other you have copyrighted material available to everyone for free, all within the confines of today's laws. The US Library system covers Access need, and the copyright laws (for one) cover the Creation need.

And by the way, I don't think you'd think it was fair if after owning a book or album for 20 years, it became "public domain" and anyone could legally take it from you without your permission, do you?

From a moral standpoint, I believe emulation and ROM dumping provides a valuable service in enriching our culture and preserving our cultural heritage for future generations.

But that's not why people copy. I mean if that were, why would you risk your library of "cultural heritage" if you got caught? All your hard archiving work would be gone. But if you really wanted to preserve it, you'd do it the legal way: find people who own the games and offer them a fair fee for it, or even ask to have it for free. This is what museums do, they don't go out and bootleg books, photos, and documents.

No, the real reason people copy, and don't deny it, is becuase they can play it for free without paying and they have a rationalization that allows them to feel okay about it.

~Hanford

Originally posted by Dragon Keeper
If the game companies really cared about destroying emulation I would've been caught a long time ago. I have new realeased GBA roms, I have roms for ps games, I have n64 roms, I have everything.

Good, now that Dragon Keeper has just destroyed his entire argument by admitting that he has illegal copies of games readily available how about someone lock this thread, or at least reprimand him in some form or fashion.

I absolutely cannot condone the violation of IP rights for a product that is still within its period of reasonable commercial explotation - ie games that are currently still readily available, new. But...

re: hanford:

It's not a legal issue (from a legal standpoint, it's clearly illegal, DMCA or no DMCA). It is an ethical one. I'm saying that copyright law, as it stands these days, is a corruption and an abuse of the original spirit of copyright. The DMCA is just further corruption. We should be pressing for law change - but in the meantime, civil disobedience is one option open to us.


you cannot walk into a bookstore and get public domain stories for free -- you still gotta pay for it (even under the original copyright law).


That has nothing to do with copyright though. You're paying for the manufacture and distribution of a physical object. You have to pay for a blank pad of paper too, despite it containing no copyright material. However, you can freely download the works of Shakespeare off the internet, since there are no manufacturing and distribution costs involved (apart from supplying the badwidth of course - and if people want to supply that for free that's their own business).


And by the way, I don't think you'd think it was fair if after owning a book or album for 20 years, it became "public domain" and anyone could legally take it from you without your permission, do you?

Once again you're confusing intellectual property with physical property. It's your book, and it always will be your book. No-one can take it off you, copyright or no copyright. I also have to point out that you never owned the IP on that book or album you bought, anyway.


But that's not why people copy. I mean if that were, why would you risk your library of "cultural heritage" if you got caught? All your hard archiving work would be gone. But if you really wanted to preserve it, you'd do it the legal way: find people who own the games and offer them a fair fee for it, or even ask to have it for free. This is what museums do, they don't go out and bootleg books, photos, and documents.


Well, many people do try to do so. With limited success - since in the current cultural and economic climate, authors (who are generally open to the idea) seldom retain IP to their creations. And the publishing companies that do own the IP have no emotional or artistic attatchment to the works they own, so would rather see the work destroyed forever than let you have it for nothing. After all, destroying the public domain and clamping down on people's freedom to draw inspiration from past work is in their best interests, since they want to maintain their monopolies. My argument is that this is bad news for popular culture, and creative individuals as well.


No, the real reason people copy, and don't deny it, is becuase they can play it for free without paying and they have a rationalization that allows them to feel okay about it.


It doesn't matter WHY people do it. But I'm glad they do, simply because it means that these things are preserved. Even if it is only a side-effect. But aside from that, my argument is that a rich public domain is a right we should be able to enjoy. If people want to play old games for free, they law should support their right to do so. In the same way as you can enjoy Shakespeare's plays for free. You don't have to claim to be a museum, trying to preserve our heritage. You can just be a museum-goer, enjoying it. You're allowed to study and make duplicates of historical documents in museums, too, you know. The museums don't own the IP - they just own the artifacts.

You can say that the rights of the companies that own the IP to these old games are being trampled on when people do so - but these rights should never have been granted to the companies to the extent that they have, in the first place.

Here's a scenario:

Imagine that copyright protection was granted for videogames for a period of 7 years. This may be shorter than for something like literature, but would reflect that videogames are a fast-evolving market with a short shelf-life. Let's say it was possible to extend this once, for another 7 years, but only by application, and only if the product was still available to buy.

Who would lose out in this scenario, and why?

Who would be better off, and why?

@Anthony:
You're paying for the manufacture and distribution of a physical object.

Plus a profit to the book store and publisher. it's completely the opposite of the Public Domain's spirit: People who had nothing to do with the written work are making money off of it, and the user, the person who's buying the book, still isn't getting it for free. It's backwards.

The author can't even sell the rights becuase they're not his to sell anymore. And the reader is clearly not benifiting from it; none moreso than a copyrighted work, anyway.

And it's paradoxal and sad to read a claim that such great classic works such as Shakespere's is only worth the paper it's printed on (or worthless if it's on the Internet). And I just don't mean legally worthless.


And by the way, I don't think you'd think it was fair if after owning a book or album for 20 years, it became "public domain" and anyone could legally take it from you without your permission, do you?
Once again you're confusing intellectual property with physical property. It's your book, and it always will be your book. No-one can take it off you, copyright or no copyright. I also have to point out that you never owned the IP on that book or album you bought, anyway.

Now you're splitting hairs, becuase earlier in your post you said it was not a legal issue, but an ethical one. And ethically and morally, it sucks when someone takes what's yours from you without your permission, whether it's physical or intellectual. Would'nt it suck if someone took your 20 year old book? Well, it sucks when someone bootlegs my 20 year old (or less) game.

Just like your book, the game I make is my game and will (almost) always be my game (thanks to the new copyright laws) and legally, no one should be able to pirate it. This isn'y just legally correct, but morally, isn'it it? I mean the spririt of "I made it, it's mine, and I can do what I want with it" is a basic simple concept, isnt it? It sucks to know your game is being pirated. I know for a fact. I don't know how you could not realize that this sucks for their creators.

My argument is that a rich public domain is a right we should be able to enjoy.

I think it's the opposite. The public domain litterally renders works worthless, and once they're worthless, 99% of them fall into obscurity to be enjoyed by only a small, small fraction of the audince it recieved when it was being promoted. Promoted becuase the owners had a vested interest.

~Hanford

Plus a profit to the book store and publisher. it's completely the opposite of the Public Domain's spirit: People who had nothing to do with the written work are making money off of it, and the user, the person who's buying the book, still isn't getting it for free. It's backwards.

The publisher and book store have a right to charge for goods and services. If you bought a loaf of bread you don't expect to get that for free. The spirit of the public domain has nothing to do with getting goods and services for free. However, there is nothing to stop another publisher and book store trying to offer the same goods and services at a cheaper price, if they think they can. So yes, the consumer does benefit, both from potentially lower prices, and increased availability.

If something like, say, rare atari 2600 cartridge games became public domain, anyone who wanted to could start manufaturing new copies and selling them, as long as they thought they could make a profit after manufacturing and distribution costs. The consumer wins because they can now buy the previously unavailable carts if they want to, and probably for only slightly more than cost. The author doesn't lose, because they weren't making money off the game anymore anyway. And they have the satisfaction of knowing that people are still enjoying their work.


it's paradoxal and sad to read a claim that such great classic works such as Shakespere's is only worth the paper it's printed on (or worthless if it's on the Internet). And I just don't mean legally worthless.

But you DO only mean legally worthless - because that is the only sense in which it is worthless. A book of Shakespeare, as a product or piece of property, really ISN'T worth more than the paper it's printed on. Why is that sad? (I have no idea why should be paradoxical). Its cultural worth is immense. There are hundreds of printing companies, not to mention theatre groups and filmmakers, that are continuing to make good money by reproducing Shakespeare's work. It is to their benefit, and to ours. It's no financial benefit to Shakespeare, but then, he's dead, anyway, and he made a good living off his work when he was alive. To become a major strand in the fabric of human culture is a greater legacy than some lingering IP right to a work which is no longer being produced. This is a situation were everyone wins.


Now you're splitting hairs, becuase earlier in your post you said it was not a legal issue, but an ethical one. And ethically and morally, it sucks when someone takes what's yours from you without your permission, whether it's physical or intellectual. Would'nt it suck if someone took your 20 year old book? Well, it sucks when someone bootlegs my 20 year old (or less) game.


Right. It IS an ethical issue. But I wasn't splitting hairs, I was pointing out that your argument simply made no sense, from an ethical OR legal standpoint. Even without any copyright laws at all, people wouldn't be able to steal your books off you.

You have to understand there is a HUGE difference between intellectual property and physical property. If someone steals your book off you, it sucks, because you're missing a book. But if someone were to somehow duplicate your book at no inconvenience to you, leaving your original book in place, how would that suck? You haven't lost anything.

However, if you owned the IP to that book, and it was currently on sale and earning you royalties, then that would suck, because you'd potentially missed out on a sale. That is what copyright law is meant to protect. But what if the book was out of print? You wouldn't be losing a sale - you'd be gaining a reader. I don't understand how you can consider that a bad thing. Almost any author would be pleased - unless they were ashamed of the book I guess. But that's irrelevant: the book belongs to the ages now. Similarly for your game - it's yours, you made it and your reward is a period of time in which you have an exclusive right to profit from it. After that, it belongs to everyone - it joins the rest of the works in the thousands of years of human culture that enrich our lives in so many ways every day.


I think it's the opposite. The public domain litterally renders works worthless, and once they're worthless, 99% of them fall into obscurity to be enjoyed by only a small, small fraction of the audince it recieved when it was being promoted. Promoted becuase the owners had a vested interest.

You might think that, but you'd be wrong. The public domain is the most valuable resource we have. Our entire culture is built upon it. Is it worthless in the same way as you reckoned Shakespeare to be worthless? Obscure in the same way as Beethoven's music is obscure? Yes, 99% of work will fall into obscurity, but that is mostly because 99% of work is actually rubbish. The work has to survive on its own merits. But even a small fanbase keeping something alive has got to be better than something buried in a company archive for all eternity. Now THAT is what I call truly worthless.

Bookstores and publishers still have a vested interest in promoting Shakespeare. Orchestras can still make a good living performing Beethoven. We all benefit.

Personally, once the reasonable commercial exploitation period is over, I would LOVE to see my games become active in the public domain. You'd be a part of history. I wouldn't want all my games to be buried with me, never to be seen again. Or even to be buried with the death of the platform they were written for. Who could possibly be upset about the idea that their work was continuing to be enjoyed long after it had ceased to be a viable commercial entity?

.... Perhaps this would be a good time to point out that:

There are different views on this issue
Even the people who are 'supposedly' on one side or another don't actually agree with each other
The issue is COMPLICATED and people have different reasons for feeling the way they do
We probably won't accomplish much by fighting about it
This isn't the best forum to do so in anyway


... yes, I have a paranoid need to try and stop people from fighting. So thread lockage sounds best to me. Of course, it's probably bad on my part that I shy away from conflict so much. :)

(Too bad nobody ever came into my library to interrogate me under the Patriot Act before I had to leave the country. I would have loved to be able to break *that* stupid law.)

@anthony

The publisher and book store have a right to charge for goods and services.

But their right doesn’t run out in 20 (or 90) years. If I wrote a book, I should have the same rights they do: to sell to the publisher my goods at a profit, so they can sell the book at a profit to the store etc. The way it works now, my rights run out, but theirs don’t. You have this chain, and the PD is breaking the originatinglink and leaving the others intact.

However, there is nothing to stop another publisher and book store trying to offer the same goods and services at a cheaper price, if they think they can. So yes, the consumer does benefit.

The customer benefits no more than when it was copyright-controlled because price competition will exist no matter what. In this regard the author loses out but the customer does not gain anything.

But you DO only mean legally worthless - A book of Shakespeare, as a product or piece of property, really ISN'T worth more than the paper it's printed on.

No, if people are willing to pay more for the work than the paper it’s printed on, then it is worth something -- The IP itself is worth something. Clearly the case with Shakespeare, and countless others. But with a public domain system in place, the author is not entitled to that worth. That’s why I think it’s sad, to hear someone say his work itself is worthless.

There are hundreds of printing companies, not to mention theatre groups and filmmakers, that are continuing to make good money by reproducing Shakespeare's work. It is to their benifit, and to ours.

There are plenty of copyright-protected plays that are published and legally in-use all across America. The system works even without the public domain, so I see no advantage.

It's no financial benefit to Shakespeare, but then, he's dead, anyway. To become a major strand in the fabric of human culture is a greater legacy than some lingering IP right to a work which is no longer being produced.

You’re implying that Shakespeare (or any icon) wouldn’t be a part of our culture if his works were copyright-protected, which I disagree with. They’re embedded in our culture before the copyright runs out, normally.

You have to understand there is a HUGE difference between intellectual property and physical property. If someone steals your book off you, it sucks, because you're missing a book. But if someone were to somehow duplicate your book at no inconvenience to you, leaving your original book in place, how would that suck? You haven't lost anything.

I know there’s a difference, and I’m sorry if I didn’t get my point across: even under the original copyright law with intent to harbor a public domain, I own the IP I create for a period of time; it is mine. Then at some point it becomes legal for people to copy it without my permission, and without compensating me. I lose my rights to it, it is not mine. It is an absurd concept, that when applied to physical property, becomes painfully apparent. If I own it, and it’s mine, then I should be able to own it for ever. Whether it’s a book, or the story inside the pages of the book.

The public domain is the most valuable resource we have. Our entire culture is built upon it.

That’s incidental. Look around and you can see that our culture lives and thrives with all sorts of things not in the public-domain. It works without the process of the public domain. If these things were never to fall into the public domain it would not change the impact they are having now. Just because the current contents of the public domain is the foundation for our society does not mean it’s the reason. Everything falls in there eventually, so of course it’s going to contain our culture’s roots.

Is it worthless in the same way as you reckoned Shakespeare to be worthless? Obscure in the same way as Beethoven's music is obscure?

What I mean is the public domain has made available for free these works whose IP is clearly worth more than “free”. More specifically, the public domain is the sole reason that Shakespeare’s plays are only worth the paper they’re printed on.

Yes, 99% of work will fall into obscurity, but that is mostly because 99% of work is actually rubbish.

There are plenty of other items (actually a lot of video games) that fall way-short of being an institution like Beethoven, but are certainly not rubbish. In the public domain, there is no monetary incentive for the author to pump money into it and promote it, yet it’s not going to be a household name. In this case the fanbase that otherwise might have paid money for it gets it (the IP) for free.

The work has to survive on its own merits.

This is exactly what I’m saying: the work does survive on it’s own merits. The works would survive without the public domain. A copyright-controlled system works, and it fair to the creators. Beethoven isn’t well known specifically because it is in the public domain.

Bookstores and publishers still have a vested interest in promoting Shakespeare. Orchestras can still make a good living performing Beethoven. We all benefit.

We all benefit except the persons (or their estates, or relatives) who created it in the first place.

Who could possibly be upset about the idea that their work was continuing to be enjoyed long after it had ceased to be a viable commercial entity?

You're implying that without the public domain it would not be enjoyed, and that's not true. There's no reason it couldn't survive a long time after I die, even without a public domain.

In a lot of cases (like Mickey Mouse, for example) the whole reason it would cease to be a viable commercial entity would be the public domain. Once the creator loses exclusivity, it’s value drops. There’s less/no incentive to promote it. To put energy and money in it.


~Hanford


papillon: Respectfully, this is an interesting debate, no one is flaming, and we're arguing about the points and not calling each other names, so I see no harm in continuing it.

One more thing I want to reply to (sorry):
The author doesn't lose, because they weren't making money off the game anymore anyway. And they have the satisfaction of knowing that people are still enjoying their work.

In the case of the Atari cartridge, yes, but the manitory-PD laws apply to everything, even if they're still making money. There are plenty of cases where the author (or the author's estate) would lose, becuase the PD is cutting short a work's life for that author. There would be even more cases if copyrights lasted 20 years (isn't that their original length?)

~Hanford

Does it really matter on opinions ? :) don't copyright's last for 50 years or so.. which means don't copy it you bitches.. simple as that ;)

as for DragonKeeper, self confesed *PIRATE* who's original post mentioned emulation is good to keep old machines alive... erm.. yes maybe a long time ago.. but like you say.. you have a ps2rom.. not exactly retro.. nor is GBA but you gladly point out you have all the latest roms.. TBH, I bet your the type of person who warez, but if you write a bit of shareware and it does the rounds I bet you will be pissed to the extreme...

.. you seem to have missed the concept of civil disobedience somewhere, Nikster. :)

And there *are* things that get lost and destroyed because of their lack of public domain. Non-digital things, generally, rather than games - it's fairly easy to archive a long-lasting copy of a digital product and bury it until copyright expires (if it ever does, the Rich Corporations are busy trying to make copyright eternal). However, as I mentioned earlier, old movie film is decaying... and there have been television shows to which the original source material is lost / discarded by the production company (tapes took up lots of storage space!), and the only existing copies are low-quality home recordings made by people who watched the show when it first came out.

If the show were passed into the public domain, those people with tapes could legally capture them into digital format and distribute them, and we could all watch the show again. If you leave it sitting on the tape and hope it doesn't melt and that vcrs which can play it still exist in 150 years when the copyright expires... well, what good is this doing anybody? :)

I don't think anybody but DragonKeeper's defending DragonKeeper.

Current copyright legislation is broken. We *need* a method that both opens up access to the consumer and fairly rewards the creator. It would be nice if a small portion of profits were *always* sent back to the original creator (and said creator's family) no matter *how* long said person had been dead. Or the whole idea of selling all your rights to something... which awfully sucks when companies have been known to get people to sign away their rights for $50 and then turn the creation into something worth millions and never give the real creators another penny. That's not fair.

(You'll notice that I have a lot more respect for the rights of a creator who made something than for the rights of a company that wants to make money.)

It's like... licensing. If a company is not using their license to a bit of IP (by failing to make it commercially available) then someone else should be able to do so... but a cut of any profits should STILL go back to the original creator.

It is important to understand the distinction between copyright and property rights. The whole argument hinges on this distinction, and you can't really equate the two.

So, on the one hand you have, say, a cabinet maker. He works hard at his craft, and the physical object that results (the cabinet), belongs to him forever, or until he sells it, whereupon the rights are transferred to the buyer. There is no real problem with intellectual property, because to make a second cabinet would require the same amount of work as to make the first (although particular design features may fall under IP).

Now, on the other hand, you have something like a videogame. The videogame isn't an artifact, like a cabinet; it is information. It might seem like an artifact, in that the creator will spend a long time crafting it, like the cabinet maker does - but in actual fact, a videogame is an idea - an idea carefully explained in a precise way. Similarly, the contents of a book is an idea, and the notes of a piece of music are an idea. Their value does not lie in their physical manifestation the way a cabinet does. And of course, an idea, once formed, can be easily reproduced.

Now, that being the case, it's easy to see that ideas require special protection under the law if the author is to profit from them. If the first person who comes along could start reproducing your idea, they could take all the profit with none of the hard work. It wouldn't be worth your while to put in all the effort coming up with new ideas, so pretty soon we wouldn't have any. This is why the concept of copyright was created; to act as an incentive for people to come up with new ideas, by giving them a (as I say, relatively short) period of time to exploit their idea commercially without having to worry about the competition. All well and good (in fact, it's essential). But why is it important that this right is only granted for a short period of time, when your ownership of the cabinet is eternal? Well, just as ideas require special protection under the law that aren't required for artifacts, so to does allowing the ownership of ideas open up new kinds of abuses, if we're not careful.

Take for example the Edison company. Thomas Edison is of course best remembered for the invention of the light bulb and phonograph; but he was also a ruthless businessman, and his company was, 100 years ago, the equivalent of something like Microsoft today. And 100 years ago, the Edison company owned the patents to the technology behind the latest technological craze - motion pictures. It's important to note that Edison didn't invent the technology - it was developed of course from the earlier technology of photography, developed by the Lumier brothers in France, among others, and further refinements were also developed by some of Edison's employees (who, of course weren't compensated for their ideas). Nevertheless, the Edison company managed to secure the patent rights in North America for cinema equiptment.

But they didn't set about the business of selling this equiptment to people. Instead, they kept it to themselves, with the intention that the Edison company was to be the only company with the rights to make and screen motion pictures. Widespead civil disobedience ensued - the Edison company fought hard and mercilessly, bringing all their commercial clout to bear against any budding independant filmmaker they got wind of. But eventually, the independants won out, and the patent rights were overturned in a major antitrust suit brought against Edison. Which is just as well, really, since Edison-made movies were crap. It is worth noting, though, that if the current political climate was prevailant back then, Edison could have retained the exclusive right to make movies until about 1975.

Now imagine the same situation applied to something Edison really did invent; the light bulb. Edison worked long and hard to come up with a working prototype; it's only fitting that he be given a certain amount of time to exclusively exploit this commercially, as his reward. But what if this intellectual property right was extended into perpetuity? Imagine the Edison company today, licensing production of light bulbs to all the light-bulb producing factories in the world. Let's say the it cost the factories $1 to make a light bulb, and for each light bulb also made them $1 in profit. But for every bulb made, they had to pay a $98 licensing fee to the Edison company. The Edison company makes hundreds of billions of dollars in profit a year. The factories make a little profit. And we the consumers end up paying $100 for a light bulb. Apart from the obvious disadvantage to the consumer, we have the added problem of the technology stagnating. The factories don't have much incentive to become more efficient - if they managed to halve production costs, the lightbulbs would still ship for $99.50 each. And no-one else would be able to develop better light bulbs - unless they worked for the Edison company of course - and with no competition, why would they care? And good on Edison for coming up with the light bulb - but isn't it a little excessive that his reward should be hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue he doesn't have to work for, continuing into perpetuity?

This might seem a little far removed from ROM dumping, but the point I'm trying to make is that granting someone the exclusive ownership of an idea for a long period of time is a very dangerous thing. The truth is, you can't own an idea. The law recognised that in order for ideas to be fostered, a short grace period protecting the use of an idea should be granted. This grace period has now become dangerously long.

Originally posted by hanford_lemoore I know there’s a difference, and I’m sorry if I didn’t get my point across: even under the original copyright law with intent to harbor a public domain, I own the IP I create for a period of time; it is mine. Then at some point it becomes legal for people to copy it without my permission, and without compensating me. I lose my rights to it, it is not mine. It is an absurd concept, that when applied to physical property, becomes painfully apparent. If I own it, and it’s mine, then I should be able to own it for ever. Whether it’s a book, or the story inside the pages of the book.
[/B]OK, this surprises me, because this was what I was interpreting your comments to mean and I thought you were merely misunderstanding your position.

I dissagree completely.

I don't think "I own it, and it’s mine" is a concept that should apply at all to information. Conceptually copyright is mererly a right granted to you over infomation. You could either say informatin has no owner or sociecty is the owner.

What I mean is the public domain has made available for free these works whose IP is clearly worth more than “free”. More specifically, the public domain is the sole reason that Shakespeare’s plays are only worth the paper they’re printed on. I own a copy of the complete works of Shakespear. I picked it up for $7.50 (books such as "The Tiddlywinks of Shanara" are usually in the $25-$30 range). It was cheap but still cost money because I was paying the store to have it there etc. If it was under copyright I have no doubt that it would be in the $100 range because of its size.

The reason why I think copyright should expire is not so much that I think that society is better off with me having a copy of this book but that I think that society is better off if everyone can get a copy of the CWOS. Now if everything were to be made free, things typically break down. A lot of people will not produce things if they were to be simply given away. Copyright was designed to provide a middle-ground. When a person creates a work they get a chance to exploit that work for a return, This serves the creator. After a time the copyright runs out and society benefits.

I think the moral solution is one that provides the best solution for the largest number of people. An unlimited term copyright is an optimum solution for one person.

There are plenty of copyright-protected plays that are published and legally in-use all across America. The system works even without the public domain, so I see no advantage. I have experienced cases of school plays being shut down because they were unaware of the charges, I also was at a meeting of people discussing what play to do in an amateur drama society. They started with what they wanted and crossed thos off that they couldn't afford the fees for. Copyright-protected plays may work for some but certainly do not work for all. The best solution for the largest number of people must surely be the most moral option.

In a lot of cases (like Mickey Mouse, for example) the whole reason it would cease to be a viable commercial entity would be the public domain. Once the creator loses exclusivity, it’s value drops. There’s less/no incentive to promote it. To put energy and money in it. [/B] A lot of people think that Mickey Mouse is a good example of something that is way past due to enter the public domain. The creator is dead (or cryo-frozen, depending on who you talk to) A business is reaping the rewards of an old idea and buying longer copyright laws.

I find it outrageous that women and blacks should be allowed to vote in the US. Original laws provided that only white males should be allowed to vote. Amending those laws to allow women and blacks to vote was a perversion of the system.

OK, sorry about that...just had to play devils advocate for a second. The whole point of "but that isn't how copyright was originally intended" is irrelevant. Societies change, and laws change with it to adapt. Voting laws changed with our society. So did taxation laws. And so did copyright. You can't just live in the past and say current laws are an abomination so you choose to ignore them. Sure, some unconstitutional laws are passed and then repealed, but legislative extension of copyright terms is a trend in the US that had been going on for over 150 years. It's not some law that was passed a last year and likely to be repealed. It's a fact of life and of our society. Deal with it.

And, just to play to you a bit here, if you really think we should be abiding by the original copyright law, then the original law granted protection for 28 years. So, you should only be emulating games over 28 years old. I'm not sure that leave you too many games though. Hope you enjoy your Pong emulator.

... Actually, your post is also a perfect example of "The law ain't always right." ;)

The law generally changes to keep up with the cultural mores (is that the word I'm looking for?), even if ideally it should be hewing to a higher cause... so when the general attitude of the country was that homosexuality was evil, the supreme court ruled that it was legal to bar gay sex. Attitudes changed, and now the supreme court rules that it's not okay to bar gay sex.

The general population is struggling against current copyright laws and feeling like there should be change. Many people think abandonware is actually a legal concept. Many more people think it ought to be. And then there's fanart/fanfiction, another kettle of worms in the IP battles...

So yes, this *is* something that might be overturned and changed in coming years. Depends on whether the Common Man can rise up and overturn the crushing corporate dystopia trying to keep us down. :)

I agree with those who requested this thread be closed, so it's now closed. While I feel the participants did an excellent job of preventing this discussion from degrading into a flame war (which shows quite a high level of maturity considering the topic), I don't think such a topic is appropriate for this board. Although I have no doubt that if this thread continues, it will produce an abundance of new posts today, I suspect it won't be productive or helpful to forum members.