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.
This sounds... (Score:5, Interesting)
Playing by the rules? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:good idea (Score:2, Interesting)
Not to mention Blockbuster and Hollywood Video.
Rental-priced videos (Score:3, Interesting)
-Andrew
Along a similar vein (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Why not a partnership? (Score:1, Interesting)
It's no different than renting... (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
Re:Rental-priced videos (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:My God (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:My God (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Are you prepared to go to jail? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Nintendo and the blowing myth (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Didn't SEGA allready try this? (Score:2, Interesting)
A similar (whatever)-Ware idea... (Score:1, Interesting)
It is the idea of paying a nominal fee (say, for argument's sake, 10 bucks) to a game/utility developer, and once you are done with the game/utility/whatever, you offer it up to the next person seeking it, for the same 10 dollars. Kind of like a rental fee, but more of a "loaner" fee.
That way, you've paid your 10 bux to the developer, and he/she gets to keep it for his/her hard work; however, once you've finished with it and pass it on (my original term for this was "PassWare"), you get your money back from the next person in line.
Now, let's say the developer offered up (theoretically) 100 saleable "copies" or downloads of this product, he/she could be in for a substantial R.O.I., while the only person who pays for it without a "payback" for passing it on, is one who either really likes the app and keeps it, or one who just ends up getting stuck with it at the end of it's life cycle... (but hey, there has to be a pitfall somewhere, right?).
I didn't say it was a perfect plan, but one certainly profitable for a developer, while being truly affordable (you get your money back) for the end-user.
~mw
Read a little further down (Score:3, Interesting)
(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.
Re:Rental-priced videos (Score:2, Interesting)
You buy it for $5-20, and then if you don't 'like it', you bring it back in 2 days. If you DO want it, you simply pay the rest of the regular purchace price. Then you get the shrinkwrapped box with all the manuals, etc.
It is really 'renta;' but I guess they can get by with the way they are doing it. They've been in business several years.
As long as it's not PC software (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
The same argument could be used to stream videos. (Score:3, Interesting)
- 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.
Bring back micropayments... (Score:3, Interesting)
Nintendo is nuts! (Score:2, Interesting)
These guys are nuts!
They claim all kinds of legal things are illegal.
From this website:
Are Game Copying Devices Illegal?
Yes. Game copiers enable users to illegally copy video game software onto floppy disks, writeable compact disks or the hard drive of a personal computer. They enable the user to make, play and distribute illegal copies of video game software which violates Nintendo's copyrights and trademarks. These devices also allow for the uploading and downloading of ROMs to and from the Internet. Based upon the functions of these devices, they are illegal.
Are they allowed to just lie like this? Pirating games is illegal, not making a backup.
Here's another good one:
Can I Download a Nintendo ROM from the Internet if I Already Own the Authentic Game?
There is a good deal of misinformation on the Internet regarding the backup/archival copy exception. It is not a "second copy" rule and is often mistakenly cited for the proposition that if you have one lawful copy of a copyrighted work, you are entitled to have a second copy of the copyrighted work even if that second copy is an infringing copy. The backup/archival copy exception is a very narrow limitation relating to a copy being made by the rightful owner of an authentic game to ensure he or she has one in the event of damage or destruction of the authentic. Therefore, whether you have an authentic game or not, or whether you have possession of a Nintendo ROM for a limited amount of time, i.e. 24 hours, it is illegal to download and play a Nintendo ROM from the Internet.
If I have a copy of the original cartidge, I don't see where they would have any legal leg to stand on saying that I couldn't download my backup copy from the internet. What if I ripped the ROM image myself, move it to my website and download it back to my PC? Does anyone know if there is any actual ruling supporting this or is this just them trying to say that you can't use the word 'mario' without paying the the appropriate liscensing fees?
Copyright law needs to be changed so that, any work that is publicly availible not made publicly availible for sale becomes public domain in n years, where n is less than 75 frickin' years
Re:Playing by the rules? (Score:2, Interesting)
You'll be able distribute a ROM to thousands or millions of people, without cost (aside from i-net access, for which you are already paying), and in virtually no time at all.
Captain Reality to the rescue!
Serving data of any kind to the general public (be it Ethically Correct or not) might just seem like a magical process of copying all the 1 bits and the 0 bits. But it does not scale to "thousands or millions" without significant cost. Think, your connection is either:
But don't worry, I used to think the Internet was free, too.