Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Borrowing ROMs

Posted by CmdrTaco on Mon Jul 29, 2002 01:32 PM
from the something-to-consider dept.
An anonymous reader writes "It looks like Console Classix is trying introduce a new old concept to the world of P2P file sharing, at least as it applies to NES and SNES ROM images. You download their client program, and then you can "borrow" one ROM image at a time from their site, play it, and then release it for someone else to use. There are a finite number of ROM images on the site, each one ostensibly dumped from a legitimate and unique cartridge. I wonder if this will allow an end-run around some of the questionable legality of file-sharing... and I wonder if this could work for MP3s, movies, and other forms of media?" I think its pretty reasonable, but I doubt that the industries will agree.
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • This sounds... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Satai (111172) on Monday July 29 2002, @01:36PM (#3973038)
    This sounds sort of similar to the MP3 locker program that mp3.com had a few years back, except more stringent. I don't think it'll fly, and if it does, it'll be AFTER legal battles.
    • http://www.consoleclassix.com/legal.htm [consoleclassix.com]

      It looks like NOA hasn't contacted them in over a year regarding the alleged violation. Perhaps that means NOA realized they don't have much of a case against ConsoleClassix.com [consoleclassix.com]. Either that or they've been brewing a legal case for the last 13 months, which doesn't sound all that likely to me.

      Who knows, maybe someone has finally figured out a way to sling stones at the giants and defeat them.
      • Console Classics' legal argument http://www.consoleclassix.com/legal.htm [consoleclassix.com] could as easily be used by a video streaming service to "rent" movies over the internet. Rules:

        - Don't bypass the encryption - digitize a tape or the output of a DVD player rather than using DECSS.

        - Stream it to customers using a client that doesn't make a non-ephemeral local copy and dumps cache if the connection is lost (i.e. Realplay, Microsoft's media player with appropriate flags set, or a client of your own.)

        - Don't have more streams going than you have purchased copies of the original program. (Might also be good to digitize each copy separately.)

        Of course you'd want to rent for a several-day period (like a video rental store) rather than releasing the copy for re-rental as soon as the customer is done with it. Otherwise you'll have a much faster turnaround than a video store and will thus rent more showings per copy. Good for you but bad for the studio, so they're more likely to go after you in court.

        Even with the same rental times you'll probably be slightly more efficient than a video chain, since you'll have ONE virtual store with a single pool of virtual tapes to serve all the customers, rather than having to divide the copies among multiple physical stores and guess the local markets right. But that's small potatoes. Your big profit improvement over a classic rental chain will come from not having to maintain the physical stores.
        • So we need a re-design of the law.

          You can make copies for your use (*cough* Cactus Data Shield *cough*) as well as using others copies if you have the license to do so.

          For this you cannot make copies expressly for other people, but other people can use your copies if they already have the right to make their own.

          Whaddaya think?

  • Shareing (Score:3, Insightful)

    by buss_error (142273) <buss_error @ y a h o o.com> on Monday July 29 2002, @01:36PM (#3973044) Homepage Journal
    Didn't seem to work for MP3.COM, and I thought that MP3.com had a better chance than Napster. After all, MP3.COM wanted to confirm you actually had the CD you were trying to play, and Napster didn't.
  • by Marx_Mrvelous (532372) on Monday July 29 2002, @01:37PM (#3973047) Homepage
    I like this idea, but because it will hurt business, it'll go away.

    Of course, "fair use" states that you can lend, borrow, and sell used merchandise (CDs, PS2 games, etc) but when it's on such a large scale, businesses will fight back to try to make up for lost sales. If it stays limited to older nintendo and sega ROMs, they might slip under the radar... but I don't know anymore.
    • Yeah, look at the whining by authors about Amazon selling used books. And the whining and pressure by the recording industry about record stores selling used CDs.
        • Games I know are probably different, do they obtain a special license to rent

          In the United States, it's illegal to rent PC software without a license from the publisher (17 USC 109(b)(1) [cornell.edu]). PC software means a computer program designed for a computer that isn't primarily marketed to play video games.

          • "But does a form factor and a pin assignment count as copy protection?"

            All Nintendo has to do is say that it was intended as such. As an added bonus, the catridge format had the advantage of being a fairly effective form of copy protection, especially in a non-emulated context. Sure it was bypassable, but the mechanisms for bypassing cartridge-based protection tended to be fairly elaborate. In contrast, the Dreamcast protection was almost non-existent (with an unmodified Dreamcast being able to boot cracked, burned games) and the Playstation's protection was a bit better (requiring a mod chip).

            • All Nintendo has to do is say that it was intended as such.

              The fact that Nintendo made most of the NES cartridge specs PUBLIC in Nintendo Power magazine during the third year of publication kind of blows "anybody who reverse engineers our NES cart edge bus is breaking trade secret law" out of the water.

              As an added bonus, the catridge format had the advantage of being a fairly effective form of copy protection, especially in a non-emulated context.

              Are you saying emulation is illegal? Try telling that to the developers of Wine [winehq.org] and Bochs [sourceforge.net]. If, on the other hand, you merely claim that Game Paks were physically hard to copy, then look at all the pirate multicarts you can pick up in HK.

              Sure it was bypassable, but the mechanisms for bypassing cartridge-based protection tended to be fairly elaborate.

              I understand that Nintendo 64 Game Paks and later Super NES Game Paks (the one with the SA-1 coprocessor) had a small amount of protection against homebuilt dumping machines, but there is NO protection on Famicom, Game Boy, or Game Boy Advance Game Paks: just write the address, read the data. Write the address, read the data. From there, you can construct a complete backup copy of the binary.

              In contrast, the Dreamcast protection was almost non-existent (with an unmodified Dreamcast being able to boot cracked, burned games)

              That's about how much protection there is on GB and GBA, and homebrew developers [gbadev.org] like it.

        • When you buy or play old games you aren't at the store buying new ones.

          Yes, but that doesn't prove your point. Even without this system I'm not at the store buying new games. I haven't bought a new game in years -- I wait for some sucker to shell out $40-$60.00 for a new title, play it for a few weeks, then sell it used to me for less than half price (usually $20)because that's all it's worth to me.

          Let's go back and talk about business dynamics for a moment, though, since that's the title of this thread. The software industry is operating on the Economics 101 rule that scarcity increases demand -- while true for hard goods (food, shelter, clothing) with items that can be reproduced by the consumer at almost zero cost (e.g. software) it doesn't apply. It's all about market forces. Does the company want to make a high profit margin on a low volume (the mainstream software industry approach) or a low profit on a high volume? IOW, would a certain software company sell more than 4x as many copies of their Home OS if they dropped the price from $99 to $25? I believe so and I've seen market studies to back that assumption. That, IMO, is the solution to piracy -- sell more product at an affordable price which will reduce the incentive to steal. Much of piracy is a statement from the consumer to the producer; "your product is not worth the cost."

          Let's think about expensive software packages: Office suites, voice control software, CAD packages, graphics/layout software, etc. Stuff you'd never consider shelling out $300-$1000+ for but would love to own for $30.00 just to "try out" or use on some small project. Think the publisher's would sell enough lower-priced items to break even or increase their incomes? I do.

          As much as we all love to hate them, the movie houses are beginning to recognize this -- DVD movies prices are falling, selling for around $20.00 and offering lots of new features while videogame prices hover around $45.00 and CD audio costs are somwhere around $18.00. Again, think about the prices -- how many of you would "take a chance" on some unfamiliar musician for $5, vs. paying $18? (hands go up in the audience) Think that has anything to do with the popularity of file-sharing networks? I do, and I think that the music studios need to recognize that they must compete with free by selling quality, diversity, and convenience. Much of that applies to the other industries, too.

          But in the end, it's not my decision to make 'cause I'm not in charge of the studios, or the software houses. I'm just a jerk at the bottom of the consumer chain being ignored by the marketing weasels at the aforementioned empires. I've lived without their products for this long, and I guess I'll continue. It's their decision. Rant over.

          I might fail, but at least I'm trying.

  • by TwitchCHNO (469542) on Monday July 29 2002, @01:37PM (#3973051) Homepage
    Ok can someone tell me why Nintendo doesn't partner with Gamespot / Fileplanet & let an infinite of roms & mame playing go on with a membership. (With Nintendo collecting a small royalty fee).

    Are there any of the older video game companies offerin thier old games for purchase? (in any format) Or is it pretty much lawers protecting IP that the company no longer uses. If that's the case it seems like a big waste of $ to me.
    • by Apreche (239272) on Monday July 29 2002, @01:51PM (#3973128) Homepage Journal
      The reason is that Nintendo, unlike other game companies, still makes money off of their old games. Notice the three Super Mario Advance games are exact copies of Mario 2, Mario World, and Yoshi's Island? Other companies like Sega do not re-relase their old games, like Sonic 2, in their exactly the same as original forms.
      So while companies like Sega and Sony or Arcade machine makers aren't hurt by roms, Nintendo very much is. If you download Mario 2 for free, that's one less copy of Mario Advance they sell. If you download a copy of Sonic 2, the only one who gets hurt is the used game store in the mall.

      I'm still pissed however that Mario Advance 3 is Yoshi's Island and not Super Mario 3. What's up with that? The last time Mario 3 was put out was Mario All Stars for SNES. I want it for GBA, like now-ish.
    • Nintendo has been rereleasing a lot of their old NES and SNES games on the Gameboy Color & Gameboy Advance systems. Most Mario games have been rereleased, or will be soon. They attempted porting the older Zelda games, but the GB screen was too small for it. Zelda 3 will make it to the GBA though.

      Various other old NES games are included within Animal Crossing, which is coming to the GameCube later this year.

      So, the answer is, Nintendo would lose money by getting involved in schemes allowing people to download ROMs.
  • by Wizri (518731) on Monday July 29 2002, @01:38PM (#3973053)
    How long beforce some one figures out how to bypass the locking and keep the ROMs on local machine? My guess 48 hours.
  • good idea (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cr@ckwhore (165454) on Monday July 29 2002, @01:38PM (#3973054) Homepage
    good idea! Public libraries have been operating like this for centuries.

    • good idea! Public libraries have been operating like this for centuries.

      Not to mention Blockbuster and Hollywood Video.
      • Re:good idea (Score:5, Informative)

        by gilroy (155262) on Monday July 29 2002, @02:26PM (#3973374) Homepage Journal
        Blockquoth the poster:
        I suspect that industry would be more receptive to these online libraries if goverments extended such programs into this area.
        Quite the opposite, actually. Publishers have hated the idea of public libraries for literally centuries. They have done everything they can to restrict, reduce, and eventually rub out libraries. Only the fact that the public library is so patently a public good -- that it engenders warm, fuzzy feelings in John Q. Voter -- has protected it so far.

        In the DMCA hearings, who was just about the only group looking out for anything close to what we might call the average citizen? The librarians' group.

        Doubt me? Ask a former Registrar of Copyright, Ralph Oman, who in a letter [washingtonpost.com] to The Washington Post bewhined that

        "A long list of
        special pleaders now gets free use of copyrighted works, including small businesses, veterans' groups, bars, scholars, restaurants, fraternal groups, marching bands, Boy Scout troops, nursing homes, libraries, radio broadcasters and home tapers" (emphasis added)
        Mr. Olman was speaking in favor of the Sonny Bono Public Domain Pillage Act (also known as the "Copyright Term Extension Act" [chronicle.com]). He bewailed the loss of revenues such Communists and anarchists as the Boy Scouts cost the poor, abused Content Cartel every year. (Blatant plug: The Post published my reply [ubidubium.net]. Like a schlub, I've lost the actual WashPost link.)

        The evidence is, the Content Cartel would prefer to see libraries go gently into that dark night of perpetual copyright extension, indefinite "access controls", and a denuded public domain.

  • I mean, I expect the first corp bot to "check out" all the roms within a few weeks, and never release them.

    Didn't scientology do this court records, at one point?
  • Well put. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by supabeast! (84658) on Monday July 29 2002, @01:41PM (#3973076)
    "I think its pretty reasonable, but I doubt that the industries will agree."

    Well, I hope these guys have good lawyers, because I doubt that the video game industry is going to just watch this site,and the cops in South Carolina (The apparent home of Jonathan Cooper, the site admin.) aren't among the nation's more liberal police forces. If he's lucky they'll just try piracy charges via some DA unable to comprehend software licensing and such, and not try to sneak in some DMCA violation on top of it.

    Don't drop the soap, John.
    • South Carolina

      Well, the gaming site will be safe if it looks like a Lottery gambling site instead of a good-for-nothing Video Poker gambling site.
  • if not it won't fly. Everything else is irrelavent...

    "What we can't make money on the net, so let's change it then. What people are using it, SO..."
  • Rental-priced videos (Score:3, Interesting)

    by torinth (216077) on Monday July 29 2002, @01:47PM (#3973109) Homepage
    Blockbuster pays on the order of 10 times as much for a copy of a video that they can rent as compared to the copy that you can pick up at Target. Not having worked at a rental store or anything, I can't speak definatively, but aren't there special restrictions on rentals that extend beyond fair use? And may not this apply? If not in the case of console roms, at least, perhaps in the case of "other media", as mentioned?

    -Andrew
    • I know that my local video store once had PC software for rent, but had to pull it. Guy in the department told me it was because the video game suppliers/wholesalers complained that the copies weren't licensed for rental, only sale. He said the companies wouldn't sell them rental licenses for PC titles like they would for playstation(2)/n64 (this was pre-ps3/gamecube), because of piracy problems so rampant on PC's. Thought it was interesting.
  • If it doesn't maximize corporate profits, then it is theft.

    What else could you possibly expect, considering what the media companies pay for Premium Legislative Services in the US and the EU. The idea that you do not own what you have bought is absurd, but the bankrolled politicians are turning that hallucination into a scary reality.

    Anybody in north central Florida got a Donkey Kong ROM?

  • Along a similar vein (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Hollins (83264) on Monday July 29 2002, @01:48PM (#3973114) Homepage

    I proposed something very similar for mp3s about a year ago on kuro5hin. There were some good comments on the idea's merits and drawbacks.

    Here [kuro5hin.org] is a link.

  • Commercial rental of copyrighted works is governed by its own set of rules. Libraries and some other institutions are special. Perhaps this would work if it falls under fair use, but then you may not have to worry about "lending" anyway.
  • by anotherone (132088) on Monday July 29 2002, @01:51PM (#3973129)
    If anyone from Nintendo, Sega, etc are listening, here is how you can either end or severly limit rom trading:

    License a user-built emulator, re-rip every cart for your system, and offer them for sale. Make it cheap- maybe $1 per Rom, or maybe charge per megabyte, or release compilation CDs, or whatever. Don't make it too expensive. Then, advertise it a LOT. Make the emulator easy to use, maybe even have it integrated with the buying system so you can play a demo of the game before you buy it, then you can just enter your CC# into the program and you've got the whole thing.

    I like my Roms, and I could get them free by lurking around a dozen shady P2P networks or download sites with gay porn banners for hours, or I could just pay a few dollars to get the same without any work on my part.

    Sega actually does something close to this already, they've licensed the KGen emulator and sell a couple of the Sonic games for PCs in stores. I know this because I own them all.

    They don't sell any carts anymore, so they've stopped making money from them. With this system, they'll start making money from them again, as well as get an ASSLOAD of publicity.

  • www.iceradio.ca is the exact same thing for Canadians only though. (Unfortunately not netscape compatible)
  • by jvmatthe (116058) on Monday July 29 2002, @01:52PM (#3973139) Homepage
    Ok, a little off-topic, perhaps, but bear with me. Suppose we view older videogames as "classics". That is, we consider Pac-man [klov.com] and Space Invaders [klov.com] as the videogame analogue of David Copperfield or Beowulf (pardon my Anglocentrist literary background or whatever). Then this is perhaps a way to make it clear to people that it becomes increasingly difficult to bear the starvation of the public domain.

    Let me take an example close to my own heart: Commodore 64 games. I want to be able to share these games with my kids, much like my old man showed me his Classics Illustrated [nostalgiazone.com] comic books. (They are classic literature in a form that kids could digest more easily as teenagers when he was growing up.) The problem is that I could be in the unfortunate situation of not having hardware that works or even software in a usable medium. Already, I've seen 5.25" diskettes go bad, so I'm left getting things off of c64.com [c64.com] where they have buckets of games in disk or tape image format. But these kinds of things are the things that make game companies cry foul. So I end up using an emulator like VICE [t-online.de] and these images to show off parts of my childhood. So whereas my dad has some slowly deteriorating comic books to show 50 years after his childhood, at the same point in my life I may have to do something that I might otherwise feel is illegal.

    In short, I think our culture will eventually feel the need for a richer public domain and we need a way to get the public on board for getting everlasting copyright extension to stop. I think that pointing out that they may not be able to show their kids the games they grew up on would be one way to explain this to normals that don't follow Slashdot.

    FWIW, I plan on making a case-by-case choice from here on out in my life as to whether I think a company is benefitting unfairly from copyright extensions. If my kid asks for a tape of Steamboat Willie (the first Mickey Mouse cartoon) I might just get a pirate copy and not feel one bit of remorse about it. They bought an illegal extension of copyright and I don't think they deserve it one bit. And in 20 years, I might be feeling the same way about Commodore games and other media I grew up on, provided my borg implant lets me think such thoughts. ;^)

    • I don't think many here will disagree with you feelings on the situation. What you're proposing is illegal, though many of us here also don't believe it should, and that the whole copyright situation has gotten out of hand.

      Bruce Perens planned a public demonstration defying the DMCA. Furthermore, it was carefully defined to defy *only* the DMCA and not the traditional concepts of copyright, and didn't overextend the common ideas of free use.

      He was willing to go to jail for it, and we wished him well. Unfortunately his employer felt differently, and presumably he felt he could be of more service where he was rather than in jail.

      But before coming up with some "copyright protest" action, try to separate the protest from the gimme side of it.

      I'm protesting too, but I've pretty much quit listening to music. I don't buy CDs, neither do I rip. Recently I began learning about Indie Music, and plan to pursue that further as an alternative way to get tunes back into my life. I'm finally deciding that I'm going to get the old turntable running, and rip my old vinyl rather than re-purchase any of my collection on CD. I can't quite take the same action on movies, though my attendence is way down. I also put forth a concerted effort never to see a first-run release in the evening, going for either matinee or second run at the cheap-seats theatre. A bit of a weasly protest, but I *am* denying them a goodly chunk of my revenue. I am not willing to go to jail, so I tailor my protests accordingly. I also write to my Congressional delegation, and Leahy is due for a scorcher.
  • by mo (2873) on Monday July 29 2002, @01:55PM (#3973155)
    This is just what cost mp3.com 400 million bucks. The problem here is that when you copy the ROM from the chip to disk, you are making a copy of a copyrighted product for commercial use. This is illegal. It doesn't matter what you do with the ROM images on disk, once you make the copy you're screwed. The only way for this to work would be to rent the physical rom chips.
  • The problem can be traced bck to the most basic economic principle: supply and demand. The fact that there are so many people out there who are trying to create the latest flavor of file-sharing only proves that there is still a huge demand for media. Naturally, the industries do whatever they can to make a buck off of that demand, and prevent anyone from taking that market-share away from them.

    Which brings me to the main point of this post. The various media industries view us not as citizens, but consumers. We all know this, and many of us resent that fact. The solution? Stop being a consumer!

    I am not a psychologist, by any stretch, but I would suggest that some people are downright addicted to media. For some, they need to have music playing all the time. Others seek only to collect hunderds of gigabytes of media they may or may not have any intention of viewing/listening to. These are the people the xxAA's want to sink their hooks into, because there is the most money to be made from them.

    So how about this. Cast off your media addiction and go do stuff that shows the various entertainment industries that they and their product are not needed/wanted. Find other hobbies/activities that don't support the monopolistic organizations. Maybe pushing the idea too far here, but maybe take up a sport!

    We will always be considered consumers first as long as we behave like consumers. If we want to show the entertainment industries that we don't like what they're doing, remove yourself from their market pool.

    • Ideas for things to do in your spare time other than buy stuff from other people.

      1) Learn to cook. Baking cookies and breads for friends can be very theraputic and win you more friends.

      2) Learn to homebrew. Brewing beer, making wine, or even mead can certainly win you friends.

      3) Join a club or other organization. A couple come to mind:
      3a) Society for Creative Anachronism (don't need even electricity for most of their activities, how's THAT for not consuming?)
      3b) NTrak Model Trains
      3c) Pick up Ham Radio
      3d) Open Source Software. Lots of projects out there.

      4) Make your own music. Heck, someone has to make it.

      5) Fly a kite.

      6) Read to your kids/friends/parents.

      7) Play a board game (anything from "Sorry" or "Monopoly" to "Munchkins", "Hackers", or "The Settlers of Catan"

      8) Woodworking. Talk about a hacker heaven... turn trees into anything you want!

      9) Sports. No, not watching them, particiapting. Try Baseball, Soccer, Football, Rugby. Or if you are more of a loner, Cycling, Running, Swimming, Inline Skating. Or possibly even my favorites: Fencing, Volleyball and Rockclimbing.

      10) Art. Paiting, poetry, pottery, photography.

      There, 10 things that anyone can do and do well with a minor bit of practice that do not consume anything from the media giants. Some of them are even healthy and might reduce your waistline. At least one of them can get you drunk!

        • You're still not getting it.

          Music is a sport. It is just as good as a verb as it is when you treat it as an object. It's a form of emotional communication, it's a form of aerobics (well, drumming), it's a form of meditation, a thousand things beyond merely producing objects for sale in a market.

          Some of the most fun I've had in my life has been playing music, just jammin', with people who were able to seize on musical ideas I put out, toss them back to me, grab onto trickier ideas, take them a different direction- it's like playing chess with a bunch of people all of whom are on the SAME SIDE. That would be a jazzy, improv-type approach- if they're rock and roll people, jump around, bang out some loud noises.

          If you're already thinking about how to bottle that and sell it to consumers, you're not really there for it- pack up your instrument and go home!

          The day I can't legally JAM on the melody to 'Free Bird' or something, shoot me.

  • by Kakarat (595386) on Monday July 29 2002, @02:01PM (#3973207)
    It's just more convenient this way. I remember there was a business in town a while back that rented software for the PC: games, applications, antivirus software (you know for those only needing temporary virus protection!). They lasted for many years until they were threatened with a legal suit because the rented software (typically for 3 or 5 days) which promoted piracy. So they shutdown for a few days then came back with a new policy: selling the software at their old rental price and after 5 days, if you haven't returned it (for any reason at all - no questions asked) then they would charge you full price.

    So if they physically have the ROM and can provide a good checkout system, then how could this be any different than renting the game at blockbuster? Even if the ROM could be copied...the same argument could be said about renting the game at a video store. Besides, SNES and NES games are getting to the point that they aren't selling hardly at all.

  • Fat Chance (Score:5, Interesting)

    by vitaflo (20507) on Monday July 29 2002, @02:02PM (#3973210) Homepage
    I don't think Nintendo would like this one bit [nintendo.com]. They state quite clearly that they are against ROMs, Emulators, and the like. I'm pretty positive Nintendo would come down hard on anyone who would try such a thing. I even know of "underground" ROM sites that don't put up any Nintendo ROMs for download for fear of being shut down by Nintendo. They're highly agressive with their IP.
  • by anthony_dipierro (543308) on Monday July 29 2002, @02:19PM (#3973326) Journal
    Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), unless authorized by the owners of copyright in the sound recording or the owner of copyright in a computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program), and in the case of a sound recording in the musical works embodied therein, neither the owner of a particular phonorecord nor any person in possession of a particular copy of a computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program), may, for the purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage, dispose of, or authorize the disposal of, the possession of that phonorecord or computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program) by rental, lease, or lending, or by any other act or practice in the nature of rental, lease, or lending.
    http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/109.html [cornell.edu]
    • From your link:

      (B) This subsection does not apply to -

      (ii) a computer program embodied in or used in conjunction with a limited purpose computer that is designed for playing video games and may be designed for other purposes.

  • by KnowledgeSeeker (596995) on Monday July 29 2002, @09:30PM (#3975899)
    A lot of posts are citing "fair use," which doesn't apply in this situation - there is no "fair use" doctrine when it comes to commercial purposes. The law states that you may not, either directly, or indirectly, profit from another's copyright without their express permission. This legal stipulation rules out almost any type of rental model of copyrighted material that isn't endorsed by the copyright's owner.

    While the library example is a compelling argument to defend a service like this, libraries aren't restricted by the same laws. Libraries are exempt for two reasons: First, as public institutions, they receive special protection. Second, they aren't charging for their service, and so they aren't profiting from the rental of the material (they don't rent material, but loan it - a small, but important distinction).

    In contrast, Video rental stores (at least all those I'm aware of) do pay a premium on their VHS and DVD purchases to buy what is essentially a rental license. That's why it's legal for them to rent movies, but not for you, who doesn't hold that licence, to do it. Commercial use of someone else's copyright is restricted by law.

    Four years ago I had a grand plan to use a very similar model to distribute music. Before doing extensive research I even thought I could circumvent the stipulation because I wasn't going to charge, but was going to generate my avenue via advertising. Unfortunately, the "directly, or indirectly" clause has been interpreted broadly - far more broadly than advertising.

    Similarly, because of the way the law is worded, I just don't think there's a way to legally distribute ROM's without entering into an agreement with the copyright holders (I looked into this relatively deeply a couple years ago as well). I do, however, hope that someone does manage to successfully enter into an arrangement with these companies - many of those old games are just too good to lose to time.

  • by Bazzargh (39195) on Tuesday July 30 2002, @09:06AM (#3977686)
    Back in my day they used to have a scheme where you could play any available videogame for 10p (er, 25c for the yanks?). This whole ROM sharing thing went on too, but was more of a one-way process when the big kids wanted a game.
    • Read their page - it doesn't work that way. You have to download a specially modified version of Nester (which fortunately happens to be a very good NES emulator) that connects to their site and downloads a ROM into the program's memory. No files touch your hard disk.

      Someone would have to waste a lot of time writing a crack, but I guess someone probably will do just that, if only for the challenge.
      • Waste a lot of time for a crack?

        All you'd have to do is find where in memory the game keeps the ROM, and dump that to disk. Voila, no difficult crack needed. Run the thing through a debugger, and it won't take too long.

        The only way to actually make this secure for more than a day is to have the kind of security called for by Palladium, and I'd rather do without the service, thanks.
    • Re:My God (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dasunt (249686) on Monday July 29 2002, @02:03PM (#3973216)

      What? How did this get modded up?

      The 24-hour trial period is a myth. However, reverse engineering old consoles is not legally shaky. Look at the faqs on MAME.org or some other respected emulator site.

      As for dumping cartridges, other then any possible DMCA concerns, it is 100% legal. Fair use, remember? As for transferring copyrighted material from an owner to a borrower, I did that last week at a local hangout known as the 'library', which allowed me to grab a few books, music CDs, and VHS tapes.

      As for 'copyright infringement', I would be willing to bet that in 50 years, the only reason that some of the early 70's and 80's era games exist are because of emulators. Heck, right now, MAME emulates games that would be physically very difficult to find. Atari cartridges are also deteriorating over time. Sure, the guys who pirate the latest XBox and PS2 games are scum who aren't willing to pay for game developments, but there are guys who are into emulation for the old games which aren't available anymore. Games are a work of art, why let them be lost? Preservation has always been an admirable goal.

    • Re:My God (Score:5, Interesting)

      by windex (92715) on Monday July 29 2002, @02:04PM (#3973222) Homepage
      Last time I checked I was no longer able to buy brand new original 8-bit Nintendo cartridges.

      I still own a brand new 8-bit Nintendo.

      It works fine.

      I am prevented, from a legal standpoint, of any easy way to back up or restore games to and from cart's, as far as nintendo is concerned.

      Nintendo may have this right, but in reality nintendo does not provide replacements for the cart's themselves, how do you deal with that?

      What rights to software owners have when software is abandoned?

      None?

      It's one thing to pirate music you can go buy from a store, I tend to beleive it's another thing alltogether when you download a replacement copy of software you honestly do own -- but even if, the law has made it difficult to put the game back into a cart for play on the original system, so when you talk about roms+emulators, then everyone automatically assumes you stole XYZ and your a damn dirty ape just because that's what corporate america has spoon fed them.

      Mabye you should start thinking more about freedom and less about being pissed at people who cry wolf early and often to preserve your rights.
                • If my video game breaks, I would try to fix it (blowing on the contacts, cleaning the cart, etc). If it didn't work, I would throw the cartridge away and either get a new game (Super Mario Sunshine, a terrific game) or try to find another LEGAL copy of the original.

                  So remind me again why it's not legal for you to download the contents of the cartridge onto your own personal computer so that you could continue to enjoy it?

                  I don't understand your position here. You keep saying that it's illegal for you to make a backup copy for personal use. Why is that?
    • Re:My God (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Storm Damage (133732) <st0rmdNO@SPAMhotmail.com> on Monday July 29 2002, @02:17PM (#3973316)
      Before you go making forcefully declarative statements about Copyright Law, maybe you should actually read it.

      While I agree with your assessment that 24 hour trial periods are not legal, the other activities you decree against the law are under no such prohibition. For instance, the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 specifically allows consumers to make backup copies of any digital media they purchase for the purposes of archival and protection against media damage.

      I also don't see what possible legal arguments can be constructed against "Borrowing". U.S. Courts have consistently held up the "First Sale" doctrine for copyrighted works. When you purchase copyrighted work on any media, you are legally free to dispose of that particular copy of the media in any way you choose, save distributing multiple copies. You can give it away, loan it out, rent it, lease it, or sell it to a third party. Studios, and later game companies tried to sue video rental chains for renting movies and games when that practice first started, and the rental outlets won. This is really not much different, although a savvy IP lawyer might argue that the vaguaries of "ephemeral copies" made in internet transmissions make this a totally different ball-game. It is uncertain, sure, but hardly the cut-and-dry sort of case you're claiming.

      Another question I have is how is emulation on shaky ground due to reverse engineering? Reverse-engineering has been held to be perfectly legal in hundreds of court-cases, at nearly all levels of the judiciary. Even video-game emulators have been held to be a legally permissible product of reverse-engineering technology for compatibility purposes, in the case Sony vs. Connectix Software. Case law is firmly on the side of reverse-engineers in this regard (unless of course patents are infringed upon, in which case there is no need for reverse-engineering anyway, since the patent definition is a publicly available spec of the technology in question).

      You seem to have a strong emotional feeling on this issue. I don't care to argue the philosophical or moral issues involved in freedom of information, or the balance of the right to share knowledge against the benefit of providing knowledge generators with a socially useful reward for their activities, because your tone indicates you are not capable of conducting such an argument in a rational and civil manner.

      I will, however, happily correct your glaringly false statements about the law regarding these issues, as it has nothing of the black-and-white clarity you seem to think it has.
    • Re:Every time (Score:5, Insightful)

      by NoMoreNicksLeft (516230) <john,oyler&comcast,net> on Monday July 29 2002, @02:08PM (#3973252) Journal
      Because there is still money to be made from them, no matter how old or tired they are. Hell, if they would just SELL them they could make a killing.

      Haha. Do you believe your own drivel? The intellectual property industry has shown time and time again, that they will crack down on infringement even when there is no chance of it hurting their revenue stream.

      No, they do it for a different reason. Please allow me to indulge in a metaphor. Imagine that they sell bottled water. Not a bad business to be in, everyone has to drink, right? Plus, they're just selling water, and still getting $1.29 per bottle at 7-Eleven. They could easily get rich, lazy, and still have a big inheritance for their spoiled brats... so what's the problem? Well, there just isn't any way to grow this business past a certain point, no matter how well you run it.

      Unless.... what if everyone lived in a desert? And they were the only ones selling water? They could ask any price they wanted, and you would either buy their water or die! Fuck $1.29, $19,995 + tax sounds alot better. You can take all they have, every last cent. And as long as they don't die, sooner or later, they'll have more to spend. They're already tooled up, and whatever investment they need to engage in, they've got plenty of capital for. If only they could somehow build a desert all around us, without us noticing...

      The MPAA/RIAA/SBA are all busy building deserts. They're busy making sure the only entertainment you can have, is bought from them.
      • While dust certainly is a problem for any electrical connection, for the most part the old blowing trick really doesn't do very much. The main problem with Nintendo cartridges (all video game systems, eventually) is corrosion. The cartridge contacts build up an incredible amount of gunk on them, eventually rendering them almost useless. This problem is made worse by the fact that cartridges and the connectors within a console are often made from different metals, and some funky electolytic reaction goes on (chemistry majors feel free to expand upon this).

        The original Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) was notorious for this, due to the way the cartridges go into the unit. Remember being able to slide the cartridge back and forth even when it was as firmly inserted as possible? Also notice how no other game company has again made anything close to the NES, and all used very firm connections? A dirty NES cartridge has to be EXACTLY aligned in the console, which is pretty tricky. Taking it out and blowing on it more likely just meant that you put it back in a slightly different alignment, hopefully one in which the contacts were nicely connected.

        The solution? Good old rubbing alcohol. Dip a Q-tip in it, and rub the hell out of the cartridge contacts. Any NES cartridge that saw much use will give you a rather black Q-tip. You can usually use quite a lot of force (in fact, you may need to). I've restored hundreds of NES games this way (and a few for other systems, but 99% of the problem is that damn NES console !@$$!@#!@$), and have yet to see one that doesn't work eventually. The consoles themselves, strangely, seem to require little to no cleaning.