Borrowing ROMs 432
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.
Shareing (Score:3, Insightful)
Changes the dynamic of the business (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Why not a partnership? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
This will last real long. (Score:3, Insightful)
Didn't scientology do this court records, at one point?
Well put. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Why not a partnership? (Score:1, Insightful)
Intellivision
http://www.intellivisionlives.co
2 words, 6 syllables
B-17 BOMBER
FLAK FLAK
if you dont know what im talking about yer too young.
Re:Why not a partnership? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
The public domain and video gam (Score:5, Insightful)
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. ;^)
Re:Why not a partnership? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:This will last real long. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Rental-priced videos (Score:2, Insightful)
Wanna hurt the MPAA/RIAA'? End Media Addiction (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:My God (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Every time (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Won't Work (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Wanna hurt the MPAA/RIAA'? End Media Addiction (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Re:Why not a partnership? (Score:1, Insightful)
Sonic the Hedgehog (Genesis - 1991)
Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (Genesis - 1992)
Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (Genesis - 1994)
Sonic & Knuckles (Genesis - 1994)
Sonic CD (Sega CD - 1993)
Sonic 3D Blast (Saturn - 1996)
Sonic R (Saturn - 1996)
Sonic Shuffle (Dreamcast - 2000)
Sonic Drift (Game Gear - 1994)
Also, Sega isn't the only company doing this. Look at what Square is doing with older Final Fantasy games...they are getting new CG's and re-released (PSX). Capcom has already done a number of their SNES games for hte GBA (Street Fighter 2, Breath of Fire, Breath of Fire 2). There is big money in porting old games to new systems and it is very fast money too.
That is why game companies don't like this stuff and would never do this.
But as a note, Nintendo does have a partnership with Gamespy...it is supposed to be for their online plans...but no one really knows.
They can't rent them anyway. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Changes the dynamic of the business (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
buying roms (Score:1, Insightful)
I don't play ROMs from being too much of a cheap bastard to spend $10 on a game; I play them because it's near impossible to buy them.
Re:My God (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Personal Use and the 3rd Party (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Yes, but really, honestly - would you use this? (Score:2, Insightful)
A) Wait for the ROM to become availiable (a long time for a popular game). Then download it legally from this site, play it on their restricted software (you can forget about using it in obscure oparating systems or on your PDA) and then watch it expire.
B) Load up your favourite browser/ROM-site or P2P app and do a search. Download the file, play.
And, if the demand gets high, they will probably need to start charging or using ad-ware - how many of you would still choose option A? What if your favourite game wasnt on their list, and was only availiable with option B? and finally, what happens when your friend offers you a copy of their super-ROM-CD-collection - still option A?
This is only going to work if the big corporations manage to stop all forms of piracy and file sharing, _and_ decide that this new method is legal.
Re:Is it possible to write your own music? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
If they do lose... (Score:1, Insightful)
Obviously, businesses aren't going to like this, which was very evident when the public library system was being put in place. Publishers cited that their business would be destroyed, which we all know to be a ridiculous claim. The same thing with video rentals, etc.
As long as there is a physical cartridge/CD/whatever that is owned for each rom that can be used, and each single image can only be "checked out" by one person at a time (and they can prove this), then any opposition should not have legal ground to stand upon. First sale has already been made, and the buyer can sell/borrow/whatever to whomever he/she chooses.
However, the courts could change their minds, but it would cause a conflict of interpretation in regards to first sale, which could cause many established businesses to suddenly be in potentially bad situations.
Fair Use Not Applicable (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
making money from ROMs?? (Score:2, Insightful)
Nintendo should stop this nonsense of protecting NES and Arcade ROMs. Once they are freely available even from Nintendo.com or in an extreme case $1 a pop as some suggest (geez buddy why not buy me a donut and Ill let you copy my ROM of {insert your fav game here} or better yet Ill send it to you by email.)fans will lose interest eventually and perharps will be interested again in 10 more years.
My point is that Nintendo should add value. I dont want to spend money on Millipede or Super Mario 3 again... I already did (or rather, my parents :P ). Now, Nintendo allows me to play Super Mario 2 full color and whenever and wherever I want. That is a feat no emulator can do. And i am willing to pay 30 bucks to play Zelda, Mario and Final fight again in an 8-hour flight in a gb advance, without carrying a pc monolith.
Nintendo and other paranoid ROM protectors should focus on creating *NEW* value, as thats what makes their business alive. ROM profit cannot possibly stand as a core cash inflow... those Roms are a legacy to humanity and all of us have already paid more than was due while Asteroids and SuperPunch Out were in the arcades.....