Sega Shutting Down Hundreds Of ROM Sites 155
hakker writes: "It seems that Sega is drawing on the opinions handed down by the judge in the Napster case regarding who is liable when copyrighted files are distributed over file-sharing networks. This C-Net article describes how Sega has already shut down more than 200 ROM sites in the last couple weeks and is now after the ROM file sharing service Swapoo, which is run by a 17-year-old student. This is probably just the first of the repercussions we will see from the Napster case. How can companies like Sega be convinced that products that don't make them money anymore should be made GPL?"
How can we convince Sega... (Score:1)
Jesus, people, Sega is a company, not some self-sacrificial putz like ESR or
mother Teresa.
Re:Make Sega see the light... or not. (Score:1)
I don't recall exactly when, but during one of the gaming industry's conventions (E3?), Kaz (or whatever his name is) talked about how the Playstation isn't just competing against other game consoles but the entire entertainment industry. He went on to clarify by explaining how it's (PS) competing for the time spent by users. Taking that into consideration, consider the time spent playing Sonic on an emulator. I think Sega would rather you spend time playing Sonic on DC because a) they like being able to sell newer games, b) sales of their product gives them a good idea of whether there is a viable market for their products, c) they don't like being linked to warez/gamez/ROMz sites.
Re:Its their intellectual property - so why wonder (Score:1)
For some reason with the internet and open source people feel like they can steal without ramifications and it's their right. I once had a person ask me to send them my new copy of Win2K so they could play with it, just like it was a normal practice.
These people are a bunch of theives. If you cannot afford the software you need, you have no need for a computer either. I hope these companies absolutely string out a few people - they are no better than a common criminal that breaks into homes and steals TV's.
Lock the bastards up
Re:Why GPLed? (Score:1)
I am not adverse to going out and killing people who violate my personal property. Why should Sega be any different. I personally hope Sega is working with the Japanese crime syndicate to go out and murder a few of these people. That's probably the only way to get these people to understand.
If I personaly come across anyone who violates IP law, I will personally kill them.
Not again. (Score:1)
The problem is, most software includes code owned by other companies. In some cases large chunks, other times very small chunks. Open sourcing code that does not belong to you is not very appropriate. Trying to deal with the people who own it and trying to get them to allow you to release it cost money and time. Which leads me to my second point...
Releasing source code takes time. Shouldn't you guys know that the best? How long did it take to get a newer version of the slashdot code out? Why should we expect Sega to go through all this trouble over a dead product? Just pointing and saying "GPL it" is stupid. You guys act like 3rd graders sometimes.
Ancient Precursor? (Score:2)
To answer the question: (Score:2)
Well, stealing them certainly hasn't worked.
Also, it should be noted that many companies are releasing "classic" games, along with emulators, on CD-ROM, so there's still plenty of money to be made with ancient old-school games.
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
Re:What if this is because of dreamcast pirates? (Score:1)
Trademark laws are use it or lose it. Copyright has no such restriction.
--
My name is Sue,
How do you do?
Now you gonna die!
Re:What about game characters? (Score:1)
I recall one particular instance of an artist being sued by a recording label for publicly performing his/her own works, written long ago. Somehow, I think the aforementioned person would have been far happier if their song had no longer been owned by the company, but by the public, allowing them to make money off performing it without the company's approval.
Re:What about game characters? (Score:2)
Use it or loose it (Score:2)
One problem with copyrights, in particular now that they last for 3 aeons or heat death of the universe, whichever is longer, is that popular culture disappears. Things go away when a company won't sell it to you (because it isn't profitable) but won't let you copy it either (because, well because it's mine, mine, MINE!). By the time copyright expires (if a copyright ever expires again), the work might well be lost entirely. That has already happened with some movies, books, and television shows. In some cases, the losses are regarded as historically significant as well.
One solution would be use it or loose it. In other words, a company MUST allow a copy to be made for some reasonable fee or it will revert to the public domain immediatly. If they are actively selling exactly the work in question, that is sufficient to meet the requirement, but a derived work doesn't count. (In other words, you can get the original, not the screwed up atrocity they are selling now).
So as not to go overboard, they need not sell a license to make a derivitive work, just individual copies of the original for anyone who wants it.
If all of that is just too much like work to them, the option is to release it into the public domain, or publicly declare copying to be OK.
Convince them to go GPL? (Score:2)
"How can companies like Sega be convinced that products that don't make them money anymore should be made GPL?"
Short Answer, you can't.
They are smarter than that. They know that trends change back and forth. That eldritch ROM is also a property with a character or theme that might be resurrected if/when things change. Did you ever in a million years think Pong3D would ever be a real license? I sure didn't but there it is making someone money again after all these years. GPL'ing the ROM is tantamount to giving up the copyright on the concepts behind the game. They just won't give up what may one day be valuable again.
What we need to do is get WIPO declared unconstitutional and then move copyrights back to a reasonable value like 50 years from creation or 5 years after death which ever is longer. Copyrights are like patents, a period of time to control and make money off your idea, then it reverts to society as a whole.
Oh yeah and while we are at it, recind the evil Musicians work for Hire thing.
And I want a Pony too. (A nice Ford 5.0 pony =)
--
$you = new YOU;
I wouldn't say that... (Score:1)
Granted, I agree that GPLing is a bit silly. simply making them available to the public for free distribution without modification would be easier and more effective, and would be just as much of a publicity coup for Sony.
Re: ROMS != MP3s (Score:1)
--
Re:What about game characters? (Score:1)
The Congress shall have Power:
(snip bunch of stuff not relevent to this discussion)
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
I.e - not so you & your kids can make a fortune, but to encourage you to put stuff into the public domain. Note that for most of the US's history, copyright was 14 years. It worked. About your kids - have you considered saving some of the money you make off the work & passing it on to them? Or even that they might have to (gasp) work themselves, like everyone else?
Also, explain to me how, under Sonny Bono Copyright Act, extending Walt Disney's copyright for another 20 years has encouraged the gentleman to be one bit more productive? Show me one new work by him in the last year.
(hint for the sarcastic impaired - Walt's dead)
Nintendo first, now Sega (Score:3)
<speculation>But I'm not surprised in a way. After all, Sega is claiming the Dreamcast is the last of their console machines and they are going exclusively to PC-games. What better way to fight the proliferation of old, obsolete, non-profitable ROMs and expanding Emulation than to come out with your own, official Emulator and re-introduce all your old games in Digital form. Simply by the ROMs from Sega in lieu of the Cartridge and bamn, Sega could make some pretty good money on the nostalgia factor. But to do that, they need to dry up the other 'free'/'pirated' [or 'backup' for those of us following the copyright laws] ROM sites out there to return to being the monopoly producer, as I feel is their right. To misquote 'Field of Dreams', if you sell it, they will buy.</speculation>
Be Seeing You,
Jeffrey.
Re:I Blame Lev (Score:1)
--
h'mmmm (Score:5)
(from the submitters comment)
Man, that is a dangerous rationale for making something free - if you take, say, the RIAA argument that copyright violations are theft, then what you're basically saying is 'well, people are stealing it - gpl it!'. Uh-Uh. I don't want to see the GPL being some kind of copyright junkyard, I prefer to think of it as moving forward and encouraging progress and development. I love free software, and the spirit in which it is made produced and distributed and would hate to see us giving ammo to 'the other side'....
Games are how Sega makes money (Score:2)
Although Sega must have not thought things through with the ROM issue on the DC. How hard would it have been to insure the game is running off a GD-ROM? Put that check in the BIOS, and not the boot disk, and you elliminate quite a few ROM users who don't want to install "Chip-X" into their DC to get around an internal block.
GPL is also not the way to go on many things out there. Companies exist to make products, and earn money off them. While GPL might work great for code developed at 3am for a sound driver, it dosen't work when it's done 8-5 at a company. The company has to pay employees, and employees need a paycheck to survive. Period. GPL the entire computer industry, and watch it die in a month at most.
Re:Old games (Score:2)
No, you're thinking of a trademark. Copyright is now inherit when you create the work, and exists even if you allow millions free access to your work.
It makes sense in the case of trademark - a TM is something that distinguishes your organization or product in a particular space; if many use it then you aren't very distinguished.
I Blame Lev (Score:1)
Re: ROMS != MP3s (Score:3)
I was clarifying what the motivations are for Sega for shutting down ROM sites and why they are definately partially different from those fighting Napster. Sega has an obligation on the part of the copyright holders of their games to fight ROM piracy. The copyright holders want their protection. The RIAA has the same obligations to their artists, however, not all artists want them to fight Napster because the recording industry has "had them by the balls" for years now.
That was my point.
ROMS != MP3s (Score:5)
The thing that makes it tricky to "GPL" ROMs is the fact that permission would need to be asked of each of the companies who make ROMs (except for the ones developed in house by Sega, of course)
This is how it is with Nintendo, at least..I'm pretty sure Sega has the same issues. It's pretty understandable why they'd take action on ROM pirates.. not because it's in their own personal interest (ie, they're losing money), but because if they don't stand firm on the issue then the people whose ROMs are getting stolen may be hesitant to develop for them in the future.
Some clarification points from the submitter. (Score:2)
Re:Its their intellectual property - so why wonder (Score:1)
That's my belief... I may be wrong, though...
Re:Nothing wrong with 70 years (Score:1)
If you create something, you or again, whoever you authorize should be the only one allowed to make money from it during your lifetime...
The original poster had a great point that if things lapsed into the public domain rapidly, then in fact it would be the oh-so-loved BIG corporations that would stand to make any money that was to be made from them, and theyed be under no obligation to pay the authors... Is that what you want?
Forget Megadrive piracy - Dreamcast? (Score:2)
I think people pirating Dreamcast games is a little bit more worrying [for Sega] than people trading 10 year-old Megadrive (aka Genesis, for you poor American souls) games.
Re: ROMS != MP3s (Score:2)
There is a bit of difference between the MP3 copyright issues and those faced by those of Sega. ROMs are licensed to Sega and have copyrights retained by dozens and dozens of various companies.
Oh. I understand now. Stealing from many sources as is the case with ROMs is bad. However, stealing from just one person, a musical artist, well, that's just fine.
The lengths people go to justify their activities never ceases to amaze me. Then again, my mom taught me that any stealing was wrong. It didn't matter the cost or quality of the item being stolen. Stealing is stealing.
InitZero
ROM vs GPL (Score:1)
Why doesn't Sega release games for which there is not any feasible return on investement under their own "abandonware license"???
That way they get additional kudos from their emulator following, and publicity. They certainly wont make any more money selling 10 or even 5 year old software... most of it will be sold second hand anyway.
I really don't get the attitiude of these big companies trying to protect stuff they stand no hope of gaining a further return on investment on.
Certainly, I think the publicity investement gained from allowing a 17 or even a 50 year old kid would far outweigh any licensing revenue they would be likely to gain from squeezing rom exchange sites....
Personally these big companies can bite me. I will still be able to find roms, no matter how far "undernet" they go.
I would rather be able to do it legitamately, but.........
They don't because they're still profitable (Score:5)
Classic video games are still profitable. While we may look back at some of the old games and say they're worthless now, they're still being sold in many cases.
Activision is selling 30 Intellivision games on one PSX CD for $29. [activision.com]
Midway is selling their "Greatest Hits" Volume 1 [midway.com] and Volume 2(no longer on their site).
Atary (admittedly part of Midway now) is also selling a Greatest Hits [midway.com] cd.
Namco has a Museum 1 [namco.com], Museum 3 [namco.com], and Museum 64 [namco.com] collection out now.
Also, making the games GPL'ed is really silly. Lots of old games get remakes, why would manufacturers want the market filled with 500 versions of a past title when they want to make a new one?
While this is surely going to be considered flamebait by many... The same copyright law that allows the creators of video games to set their own terms of distribution is the SAME LAW that allows GPL developers to set which restrictions there are on distributing GPL'ed code.
So many people say that copyright laws need to be thrown out or changed... Want copyright laws reduced to 5 years? That means a 5 year old Linux kernel would be free for anyone to do as they wish with, without GPL'ed restrictions. All the old GNU binutils would have no protection at all. While I agree that insanely long copyrights don't do a lot of good for society, people are trading ROMS for some rather recent games.
MAME now supports Rampage World Tour, a Midway game released in 1999. A quick check of a few big ROM sites turn up the ROMs for this game. This game is STILL ON THE SHELVES for consoles, and the ROMs are being traded. Any half-way excuse of "preservation of classics" is out the window at this point.
I like classic games more than most. I've got an extensive library of old game boards in my basement. I also like having the games on my PC, but I buy the classics CD's when they come out.
Remember, just because something isn't for sale anymore doesn't mean it's free, or even should be.
-- Kevin
Re:Maybe companies will start doing this themselve (Score:2)
Its their intellectual property - so why wonder ? (Score:1)
I think this is diffrent from the Napster discussion, as most people I know are not satisfied with mp3 quality so they buy the CDs they like anyway.
This is pure illegal software spreading so you should not wonder about them closing down the sites, this is nothing new
The subject on that post is terribly misleading (Score:1)
But here is the thing, these roms sites that sega is shutting down, I'm 99% sure it is Dreamcast rom sites. See, the encryption recently got broken, so now every kiddie (
I'm sorry, but I think SlashStaff need to research the articles that they are going to post, at least a little... I mean the story really gives it a "Sega baaaaaaaaaaaad" vibe right off the bat, but when you get the full explanation, it makes sense. I'm getting sick of badly written slashdot subjects, its like being back in Montesori school and playing Telephone. Bleck.
You can be annoyed, but can you really blame them? (Score:2)
But Sega is suing the actual people who are illegally copying their copyrighted materials. This is unquestionably within their legal rights. As a business, it is right and proper that they should keep others from making unauthorized copies. You can argue that they aren't making any money from it now, but who is to say that they won't be selling legal copies of game ROMs in the near future? Whoever owns the Intellivision system now did just that fairly recently.
However, regardless of what is right for them to do, the copyright protection of older ROMs is clearly not supplying a significant motivation for them to create new materials (which is why we're supposed to be tolerating copyright in the first place). I think we should all speak out loudly and often in favor of shortening copyright terms to 5 years. If a copyrighted product isn't going to pay enough to justify its production within 5 years, it isn't going to be made for profit (in other words, nobody makes a game or movie because they'll be able to sell it in a "classic collection" ten years later). When copyrights were first made they had a short term: I think around 20 years or so. Since then, publishing moves much, much faster, though constant lobbying from the publishing industries have increased the term by an absurd amount (of course they're always going to want more! who turns away profits? that doesn't mean it's good for the rest of us). Most profits from video games are made in the first few weeks after release, ditto for movies, and even most novels probably pass their peak sales within a year of their release.
It managed to creep up slowly, because it's hard to raise a passionate public opposition to a 10% increase in copyright term. In the past, very few people were capable of making copies, and most of them had a vested interest in longer copyright terms. Well, now we are just beginning to all be able to make perfect copies, and most of us have a vested interest in shorter terms. Now, a five-year old movie, book, or game is a historical artifact and a part of our cultural heritage that should be free to share and preserve, just like a 200-year old book or painting.
I think if we make a loud enough noise about it (not here, of course), we can stir up widespread support.
Businesses should be expected to follow their own best interests. However, the voting public should also follow their own best interests, and limit intellectual property for their own benefit.
And, of course, all of these arguments go double for software. Nobody will decide not to write software just because it'll go into the public domain in 5 years.
OT question: does anyone know the basis for merchandising monopolies? How the heck does copyright on videos featuring a certain purple dinosaur translate to a monopoly on stuffed purple dinosaurs that look similar to the one in the video?
---
Despite rumors to the contrary, I am not a turnip.
What about game characters? (Score:5)
The copyright isn't just on the actual games themselves; it's on the characters too. So even if they're not making any money off the original "Sonic the Hedgehog," for example, making it GPL would release Sonic to the public --allowing people to make bootleg Sonic games, merchandise, etc. And it would almost certainly damage Sega's image, not to mention making it less profitable for them to sell "Sonic the Hedgehog 13" (or whatever number they're at now) for the Dreamcast.
This would be akin to Disney GPLing "Fantasia" and releasing Mickey Mouse to the public. I can only imagine the flood of bootleg Disney merchandise once the copyright runs out on "Steamboat Willie."
In short: sometimes if something isn't free, there's a very good reason for it.
Cheers,
IT
Re:Backups (Score:2)
I don't know if the 'backup' must be done using a native copier, or it can reside on disk temporarily as a side-effect of backing up.
Note that game developers are the only people allowed to have a copy of the ROM in another media format. For the majority of us, it's ROM->ROM only.
Re:Old games (Score:1)
The gist of this service is that people can pay a small fee for the right to checkout a ROM image of a classic Sega / Turbografx-16 game from a website and play it to their hearts content on their Dreamcast console.
They plan to shut down these ROM sites, probably because these sites will detract from their service (IE, all people, including me, are cheap bastards.) and steal away profit.
Re:OFFTOPIC: LinuxPPC Apps (Score:1)
Try www.rpmfind.net [rpmfind.net] or ftp.wesmo.com [wesmo.com] for LinuxPPC precompiled RPMs. Note that these should work fine with LinuxPPC 2000, YDL CS 1.2, and MkLinux R1, but not necessarily with SuSE. If you use Debian/PPC, you should be able to use alien to install them.
For other such questions, I suggest the new LinuxPPC.org site [penguinppc.org] or the LinuxPPC mailing list archives [linuxppc.org].
cya
Ethelred [macnews.de]
(who knows that he's risking an Offtopic mod but is begging and pleading for clemency)
What about the ROM swapping service? (Score:1)
WAIT! I TAKE IT BACK! (Score:1)
An interesting thought... (Score:1)
I honestly see this coming if we're not careful and it may even be happening somewhere that I'm ignorant of. The snowball is already rolling downhill - pretty soon this slide will be unstoppable.
Guess it's time to get those ROMs into some of the distributed filesystems out there huh? Oh that's right - the programmers who programmed those could actually find themselves liable now too. Cute....
Agreed! (Score:1)
Kripes, give us a choice and make some money - don't just take the choice away!
Get 'em (Score:1)
Sega is Trying to Make Money off old Games (Score:1)
Re:What if this is because of dreamcast pirates? (Score:2)
You must protect your trademarks from dillution else you risk losing them. Patents and copyrights don't lose their power unless they expire naturally (17 years for a patent and 95/120 years or life + 70 years for copyright) or you explicitly give up your rights to them by entering the material into the public domain.
Huge Differences! (Score:2)
From a legal standpoint, the server *IS* a direct infringer of the copyright, by distributing copies of the roms. 17 U.S.C. s. 106. This was never true of Napster, where the complaint doesn't even allege direct infringement.
Moreover, the number of people who can claim to be time- or space- shifting for their copy of a coin-op video game can be counted on the hands and toes in my immediate family. Thus, Napster's primary defenses would not apply to these other situations.
There is not other way to spin it: the "ROM sites" are direct piracy sites, no more and no less.
These remarks would not, of course, apply to a file sharing service along the lines of Napster -- although those who copy content for which they are not space shifting would themselves be direct infringers, even if the file sharing services were not.
Re:What about game characters? (Score:2)
It is unfortunate that Sega and other such companies feel that they cannot support free distribution of such abandonware, as many of the old school games are a lot better than what usually comes along today. If they really want to make money off of those games, they should consider releasing them as collections for the newer platforms(how many old Sega games do you think could fit on a DC?). That way you could still have something close to the original experience while at the same time protecting trademarks and copyrights.
Predilections and Aching Visions (Score:1)
You can talk about open sourcing and free software all you want, but in the end it's the courts that will decide how the internet and new technology will be shaped. And typically this is decided by the side with the most expensive lawyers.
Huh... and the emu article was only two days ago...
Re:Its their intellectual property - so why wonder (Score:1)
I'll go browsing and see what I can find.
I do remember stories of Bill Gates in the early eighties saying that the software industry required intellectual property laws, or the industry would never get off the ground. And I think that those comments were made after various failed attempts at patent applications.
Re:Its their intellectual property - so why wonder (Score:1)
You're asking the wrong guy that type of question. I don't try to make a living selling software packages on shelves to people who don't know where the on/off switch is. I get hired to write programs.
Which means, I go in, get the functional description, do my job for a month or two, get paid for my time... and then I go on to the next job. Plus, there will always be a next job, since technology is slipping out of our hands more and more each day. I have no fear that I will always find work.
So my question to you is: "Why do you feel so insecure as to insist that your services require a compensetory model completely different from any other service industry?"
Why doesn't the waitress charge by calorie... and then roaylties in inderect proportion to your excrement? Why doesn't a lawyer charge your family for every year you live as a free man AFTER you are acquited of murder? Why doesn't your auto mechanic charge you for every piston stroke plus a surcharge by gallons of gas your car consumes? These are as crazy ideas as your so called "proprietary" products.
Why do lawyers lose their licenses for charging two different clients for the same hour? That's called "double billing," and is illegal in service industries. However, you feel entitled to charge THOUSANDS of times for the same hour's work... and feel that it's stealing if you DON'T.
My point before is that under United States Constitutional Law... intellectual property CAN NOT exist legally. There ISN'T such a thing. No one owns ideas. It's a crock made up by people who know that their product, left to natural economic forces, won't make money without MAJOR government protection.
It's corporate welfare.
So let's say I write a piece of software... which I do every day. The deal is I don't make my living off of the code. I make my living off of the service. The "licenses" that Sega has written giving certain people the RIGHT to use their software are VAPOR! We haven't ever pushed the fact because it wasn't hurting anybody. We felt that as long as they made a good product, who were we to take on huge corporations on technicalities that didn't really affect us. Plus, who's going to waste the money to fight something in court that was completely HYPOTHETICAL... more of a legal argument to be argued by grad students in mock trials.
But now, thanks to the "dot coms," everybody wants to make money off of US, the techies and geeks. They want to apply the old rules to our new economy. They want to take what is in our heads and put it in neat pakages and sell it for a tidy profit.
This isn't about ego... if you wrote good code, I'll give you huge amounts of credit. This isn't about my programs keeping food in my mouth... I'm in a service industry, I don't make anything that I want to be sold as a product. It's about corporations claiming the rights to our most basic of freedoms.
Intellectual property. There is no such thing!
Re:Its their intellectual property - so why wonder (Score:1)
You obviously don't know anything about patent law. You're taking the last two or three years of software patents as your basis, and those patents won't hold up. The problem with those patents is that they're being given without any understanding by the patent office of the technology itself. As time goes by that will change. In the meantime, those patents that have been awarded will never stand up in court, where patent law inevitably functions.
Patent law has may more hurdels to jump through than does copyright law. I know, I have several. There is no way 99% of ANY programs would ever get a patent because they are not new ideas. Plus, most fall under the common sense clauses.
Copyright law is to protect publishers from other publishers. It has nothing to do with protecting artists. It's a limitation to free speech and should be used sparingly in assigning to a publisher it's PUBLICATION rights. But the artist has no control of his works. Once released he has no right to them. At least thats the way it's supposed to work. But people have this moronic idea that their ideas are theirs and they OWN them.
So copyright law has been twisted to this view.
But I'll bet you it will take only one case to get to the supreme court, and all of this stuff goes away as unconstitutional.
As to your book of recipes, the recipes themselves are not copyrightable. You'll find tons of them published in Sunday newspapers across the country. The collection itself is though.
Re:Its their intellectual property - so why wonder (Score:2)
Patent law dealt with inventions and manufacturing. (i.e. tools) The U.S. government would grant protection FOR A LIMITED TIME for any invention granted that it:
1. Wasn't of common sense. Meaning no one in that particular field wouldn't have made the logical leap themselves.
2. They had to show that they would put it to good use... that they weren't just sitting on it.
Both of these ideas have been completely warped. Everyone now thinks that they have the right to "get rich quick" with one idea. Like if I put a year into this program, my great-great grand children should be able to live off of the royalties.
I propose that the government simply remove it's protection from copyrights dealing with computer programs. They should have fallen under the patent law to begin with. In fact it is my understanding the the computer companies originally had attempted to file for patents for software, AND WERE DENIED. So they obtained copyrights instead... which I would view as unconstituional.
Let them make all the contracts they wish, with both author's and consumers... but the government should have no authority to offer it's protection in obviously CIVIL cases like this. And the judicial branch should review the latest bunch of intellectual property laws coming out of the legislative branch... and declare them unconstitutional before it's too late.
Re:Its their intellectual property - so why wonder (Score:2)
It's a tough concept to wrap your mind around, especially if you grew up with shrink wrap licensing being the norm, but Freedom of Speech protects freedom of thought. Freedom of the Press doesn't mean of the media. Hell, the media didn't even exist when the constitution was written. It meant that you can transmit any thought or idea via the most highly tecnological advances of the time... the printing press.
Which means that no one has a RIGHT to any idea. The government CAN NOT regulate it. Period.
Now if a company wants to go into a binding CONTRACT with you, then you may (under special circumstances), give up those rights voluntarily. But both sides would have to agree to that. I don't believe that shrink wrap licensing can possibly hold the same weight as a notorized, signed and witnessed contract. Plus contract law itself is controversial. There are millions of people who would even disagree with the idea that you can voluntarily give up your rights under ANY circumstances.
You base your argument on the idea that thoughts belong to someone. That you can actually come up with an original idea that no one else has ever thought up before. That you should be paid for being such a genius. That any idea used twice is stealing.
Yes, people have put a lot of time and effort into programs. No one doubts that. But as a programmer I can tell you, all of my programs have code taken from somewhere else. Every line that they teach in college was written by somone else before I got there. Where should the line between information and product be drawn? And who is to determine it?
My suggestion simply is that if programs are ideas, (since that is copyright laws' jurisdiction) then you can not own them. And if they are tools, then they should be ONLY covered by patent law... and all the limitations to which patent law restricts these ideas. Thus after 17 years (or 19...I can't remember) these programs would become public domain. And any code found to be of common sense could never, EVER be patented in the first place.
So if you can make a program that moves the world forward by THOUSANDS of years of evolution, then apply for a patent. The government should give you a limited monopoly for a third of your life to benifit from the gifts you've given to mankind.
But if your program is obsolete in five years, then how beneficial was it to humanity in the first place. Why do you feel that you should be given a monopoly when our constituion specifically states that we have a right to those ideas. And how can I possibly STEAL something to which you had no right in the first place?!
What distresses me is how quickly people are willing to give up their rights for money. How quick you were to judge this as STEALING. Like it was something physical. Like I was breaking into someone's house and raping his daughter. It's a fricking program!
Programming is a service industry. It is not a PRODUCT industry. You don't make X amount of dollars on every widget you sell... you get paid X amount of dollars on every hour you sit there at the console... doing your job. The old timers remember those days... before Microsoft. Before programming was warped into a money making machine for the technology stunted.
Stop giving them the edge. Wake up. You're not stealing anything. They're programs. Like every other scientific advancement, we're SUPPOSED to be building new programs on the foundations of the OLD ONES! That's all. They are ideas expressed in ones and zeros. They only have value if WE GIVE THEM VALUE. Stop feeding the marketing types.
Re:Yeah, it's all about selfishness (Score:2)
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/08/06/21132 16&threshold=-1&comments ort=3&mode=thread&pid=52 [slashdot.org]
Is not Flamebait and should not have been modded down.
Re:Nintendo first, now Sega (Score:3)
Sega Supports Emulation [slashdot.org]
is the reason why Sega has suddenly decided to shutdown the emulation sites. I'm angry about it because Sega is refusing to offer the classic games for sale, it's going to be strictly pay-per-play. I guess that goes along with the "rental only" structure that is currently being tightened around all intellectual property...
I assume the person who asked, "Why doesn't Sega just GPL?" hasn't read that article. It should be crystal clear that if they released game roms for PCs for free it would cut into the high yield profits they are going to get by charging you $1.50 every time you sit down to play Sonic the Hedgehog or Castlevania:Bloodlines.
Free as in beer would be enough (Score:3)
First, the designs of old games can be an asset to a company. Look at how old collections of Williams, Midway, Konami, and Atari games have sold very well for the PlayStation. Second, games can contain other property that can be valuable. Would Sega really want to start GPLing games that contain Sonic?
Either way, GPL is pointless in this case. If Sega just let the ROMs be copied freely, that would be enough. Nobody really wants Sega to give up all rights to what it has spent millions of dollars creating. Only real loons would take the opposite stance. They'd be saying that Stephen King should give up all the rights to what he has created, letting other people modify and sell his novels. That's idiotic.
Re:Old games can still make money (Score:2)
no they're not. they're protecting their wallets.
Figure out for yourself whether it's good or bad, but this isn't about continuing existence, but about money.
//rdj
Re: (Score:1)
Re:OFFTOPIC: LinuxPPC Apps (Score:1)
"Don't try to confuse the issue with half truths and gorilla dust."
Bill McNeal (Phil Hartman)
Why GPL? (Score:2)
Don't misunderstand me - I spent nearly an hour yesterday trying to find a copy of the Zork Trilogy in z-machine format. (I believe Activision released them as freeware some time ago, but then, that might just be what the pirate websites *claim*
But I think you might be a little too enamoured of the GPL to think clearly in this case. Releasing the ROM is one thing - it permits groundswell fanclubs for old titles and truly is "sharing" in the best sense of the word. But releasing code and allowing modifications could conceivably leak too much proprietary information onto the internet for the comfort of the parent companies.
My guess is that Sony sees this as a simple screen-time equation. Every minute you spend playing a free ROM is a minute less you'll spend playing a purchased Sony CD on a purchased Sony Playstation. I happen to disagree with that assessment, but then look at how the government managed to shred the "Napster makes me buy more CD's" argument in court - real surveys impress suits far more than vague theories. In the absence of hard numbers, Sony will follow it's gut. And that means no ROM's for you.
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
References: (Score:2)
United States Copyright Office
A Brief History and Overview
.....
May 31, 1790
First copyright law enacted under the new U.S. Constitution. Term of 14 years with privilege of renewal for term of 14 years. Books, maps, and
charts protected. Copyright registration made in the U.S. District Court where the author or proprietor resided.
--
Don't forget, for those who think about all the plusses of a 70 year copyright law.. I hope you're not doing anything related to Christmas.. Rudolph the reindeer is still under copyright for another 50 years or so. And your book better not contain the lyrics of Happy Birthday, as that's copyrighted too.
It's a doubleedged sword, you have to no innate right to use other's artistic works, whether they be Rudolph, Happy Birthday, Darth Vader, Mickey Mouse.
Of course, if copyright had always been 70 years, Rudolph never would have been created, as Santa and his sleight wouldn't have left copyrigh until the 70's. (Thomas Nast, the creator of Santa, died a in the 1900's.)
Re:Win 3.1 (Score:1)
That's part of the problem, finding the older games for sale.
Re:This is ironic... (Score:5)
Nothing wrong with 70 years (Score:3)
Now the book I wrote in 2000 isn't mine but is public domain so anyone publishing company can take my book word for word and sell it to whomever. Exactly who are we protecting here? Sounds like it just gives publishers the ability to make money off work without paying the author.
Some might say there should be a difference between corporate copyrights and artist copyrights. I don't, why should I lose my rights just because I wanted to go into business myself. I need corporate limited liability to protect my personal assets if my business goes into the toilet.
I find 70 years to be pretty reasonable, it'll cover my lifespan and if I happen to die early my family will recieve my royalties.
Back to the original topic, sure SEGA isn't losing a dime from old genesis ROM swapping, but I don't want to lose my personal copyrights within my lifetime because some video game brats are too cheap to run to the flea market and pay 5 cents a copy for Altered Beast and Phanstasy Star.
I'd love to see the lawsuit SEGA would bring on swappers, "The street value for each game is about a nickel, you are ordered to pay SEGA
Re:This is ironic... (Score:1)
Re:Old games (Score:1)
This is ironic... (Score:2)
Further proof that Sega support(s/ed) emulation was that the Sega Smash Pack used KGen - they licensed it from Steve Snake.
This is an #emu-EFnet inside joke, don't ask *NT* (Score:2)
Re:They don't because they're still profitable (Score:1)
What if this is because of dreamcast pirates? (Score:2)
Re:What if this is because of dreamcast pirates? (Score:2)
So having people pirate even the older games is causing problems with their current products.
No respect for the IP of companies. (Score:2)
Vectrex make a gaming unit and ROM. They released their ROMS under their own licence. A licence that promoted the exchange of the ROM without cost.
Gaming companies Intellectual Property is the code that plays the game. Some of that code stiill has neat tricks, programming tricks that give them an edge in the market.
The proposal of GPLing the code takes something that is costing them nothing and generating no income to costing the company in the future. Exactly *WHY* would any company sign up for that?
Ask them to make the old ROM images as part of a MAME package you can buy.
Or, if the preservation of these old games matters that much to you, start a company that licences the ROMS to all who want to buy it. All Sega has to do is take your check, and you have to worry about the piracy, etc la.
GPLing games (Score:1)
so you're basically saying that the GPL is great, if you don't want to make any money.
wouldn't it would be better to ask why we can do to convince companies like Sega to GPL thier software in the first place?
---
Colleco (Score:1)
Well, since Coleco went out of buisness can people legally trade them?
If people don't remember Colleco (is it Coleco or Colleco?), they made an advanced game system for the time with features like 8 bit graphics and a joystick with two firing buttons, a controller and twelve presable buttons for options.
And then they put out a computer, the Adam, a peice of garbage which I still have a fondness for.
Anyway, Colleco ROMs are on the net, and though there are some made by Sega and Nintendo and whatnot, can those made my Colleco itself (Smurfs!) be legally traded?
- Serge Wroclawski
PS if you do get a Colleco ADAM, don't put keep the tape in the tape drive when you turn the machine on, bad things happen!
Sega just doesn't get (Score:1)
This is God speaking (Score:5)
Your request has already been filled. Don't get greedy, mmmkay?
GOD
Get em out, while you can (Score:1)
Re:What about game characters? (Score:1)
And the same thing will happen to a lot of other characters, unless they're altered enough to gain a new copyright/trademark license (ie., Turner's colorization of old MGM films.)
Re:What about game characters? (Score:2)
Disney will NEVER let the copyright run out on steamboat wilie, they will buy whatever congressmen are necesary to extend copyright law indefinetely so they will never have to face that "unfortunate" situation. Through the likes of Disney et al, Copyright has been extended from a reasonable 14 years, to life of the artist plus 70 years. Tell me how its supposed to encourage the artist to innovate if they have an exculsve copyright after theyre dead?
Re:What about game characters? (Score:2)
Why would anyone be encouraged to create additional works if they have a gaurenteed cash flow for the rest of their lives? The possibility of losing ones income after 14 years is a powerful incentive to continue to create, and ultimately will work for the betterment of society. What if Shakespeare had had a copyright on romeo and juliet for the rest of his life? would he have had to come up with other works? I dont think so, at the very least, he would have had a strong disincentive to continue working. He needed to be continually coming up with more works to keep food on the table and pay the rent. Also tell me the last innovation Disney (the person) has come up with since he died? I dont see any. In fact when was the last new and innovative cartoon involving mickey mouse released? Seems to be pretty stagnant there, or as Microsoft would say, "innovative".
We all own ideas. (Score:1)
We all invest in IP by giving it space in our brain - if you played a game as a kid you invested in that game. A passive input sure, but that was the only role open.
People who want to spin money from IP are basically no better than drug dealers in my opinion - hook them, and then keep pulling in the cash.
IP is a nonsense term. No man is an island. We all create together - we should all share together.
Re:It's **OLD**. (Score:1)
It's getting pretty tired.
Try this restatement:
"Somebody developed something, has failed to make the best use of it, and is preventing others from doing better - or maybe from using it at all - in a manner that benefits nobody. How do I fix this situation?"
Re:Nothing wrong with 70 years (Score:1)
Perfectly reasonable. I guess it would just be tough luck that it didn't sell earlier. The whole point of the 14 years was so "popular culture" type items wouldn't be eternally owned by corporations and people. As many have said before, you aren't magically "supposed to" make money off of ideas or stuff you've written. That's why copyright was made to begin with. It's just a concept, not a physical thing. The short limit is to make sure it WILL enter public domain so anybody can use it.
Re:Nothing wrong with 70 years (Score:2)
Little different... (Score:2)
-pf
Win 3.1 (Score:3)
IMO, stories like these help call for the repeal of the Sonny Bono Act and other legislation that has extended copyright to 100+ years on new works. The point of copyright is to promote creativity by allowing authors to capitalize on their works for a period of time, and then have the work pass into the public domain. Thus both the author and society as a whole benefit. Unfortunately, this has changed, and society's benefits are limited to the quickly eroding "fair use" principle during the first century after a new work is published.
When, as in the case of Win 3.1, an old Sega game, or any other product has lived through its useful lifetime of making money for its producer, it should be released into the public domain. Look at ID Software as an example. They made a lot of money off Dooms I and II and Quake I, and when the point where these products would no longer sell was reached, Id released these products to the public. Because of the initial protections of copyright, Id had the incentive to produce these games, while the public at-large received the benfit of having these products go into public domain. This is what copyright is all about.
When a company tries to restrict the spread of a product that no longer has any commercial value, everyone loses. Why should a software company care whether someone can download a copy a 10-year old product on a web site, after the product has no more commercial value? Current copyright legislation allows this situation to occur.
Ideally, I would suggest that the best system for copyright and IP would be to offer an initial 7 year period where the author controls all rights to a work. With today's technology, this allows an author or publisher to capitalize on the work. After 7 years, the author would have the choice of either having the work pass into the public domain or applying for an extension. If the author can prove to a judge or some other authority to be determined that an extension would benefit both the author and society, the copyright should be extended for another 7 years. Otherwise, the application is denied and protection is lost.
Of course, the real world and the ideal world differ significantly, and barring lots and lots of $$, it's going to take a long time to transform IP law into something most
Why GPLed? (Score:5)
How about, make the ROM binaries freely distributable, but not resellable or modifyable.
Putting them under GPL requires a lot of work, as then you'd need to release the source code as well, and keep source servers around, and deal with hoards of linux nuts asking for more source, and why isn't X under the GPL when Y is, and why isn't all new games under the GPL, blah blah blah.
Also, it isn't Sega's decision that all Sega games are free. Sure, they can make freely distributable ROMs of Sonic (made by Sega), but not of Contra (made by Konami).
Furthermore, if Sega wanted to implement a system of redistribution, they would want to control that as well with licensing agreements, which means the rom sites would be shut down anyways.
Re:Old games can still make money (Score:3)
Sega and Emu (Score:2)
Anyways, to my point here; We should write to Sega and ask if they would be willing to release their older ROMs to the net either as a package deal for sale, or if they feel generous, as a free download.
What should NOT be done is an emu for the Dreamcast - and frankly, anything that is cutting edge right now. Give the companys a chance to make their money back on the system and bring us new and fun games to play. After two years then the I'd think that the system is fair game. (Same should be said on MAME as well).
Re:Old games (Score:2)
EveryBuddy on LinuxPPC (Was: LinuxPPC Apps) (Score:2)
I use the base LinuxPPC 1999 system, with most everything compiled from source and a much more recent kernel.
Old Consoles (Score:2)
Why should they do this? By centralizing rom distribution at the company's "official" website the company could generate revenue on their old games by using web ads. Once a few gaming companies have given in to releasing their roms and the site has become popular the other companies who haven't yet released their old game will be ridiculed by users for their obtuseness
Eventually a standard will evolve as to when games are dated enough that they should be released in binary format. I think ten years sounds like a good number. Can you think of any games from 1990 that are still making money??? Furthermore, Nintendo/Sega could build this "ten years and it's free" into their licensing agreements with gaming companies. This would leave the decision out of the gaming companies hands.
Maybe companies will start doing this themselves (Score:2)
Old games (Score:2)
Old games can still make money (Score:3)
I think the author's judgement on what can and cannot make money anymore is faulty. There's clearly a demand for old video games, a la MAME. However, even if the companies that owned the rights to those games wanted to make money off of them, they couldn't because the games are so freely available over the internet (illegally, of course.) Even if those arcade classics were priced very reasonably, the potential market has been destroyed by piracy. Yet these games I assume the author would label as games "that don't make [the producers] money anymore." Sega is just trying to protect itself.
john
I have the way to convince Sega to do it (Score:2)
The answer is simple: Give them a reason to. If they are shown even ONE good reason to give the games away now then maybe they would. But, what benefit would they have from doing it? I mean apart from really flimsy things like "goodwill in the community". I really cannot see any reason why they would. They will probably re-release these games in some sort of compendium one day for some other system, so why give them away now and gain nothing from it, which will reduce the sales later on?
I will say this: it's too bad they're not turning a blind eye to ROM trading and they're cracking down, it probably wouldn't kill them to not crack down, but to think they should go out of their way to make it legal is a step too far. It's their property to do whatever they want with.
sig:
It's **OLD**. (Score:2)
"Somebody developed something and has the intellectual property rights to it. I want it. Why can't I have everything I want?"
It's getting pretty tired.
Some good. (Score:5)
According to their webtracker they had 2880 visitors July 31 and 32534 visitors August 4 when the article was posted on CNET.
They also gained 12000 daily visitors when they were linked to from
---
Re:I Blame Lev (Score:2)
-- mp`
Isn't Sega wasting their time with Swapoo? (Score:2)
I just got back from India and there is a company there that is selling a console, 2 super-nintendo like controllers, and a light gun package for about $50 and the game cartriges to play on it separately. To my surprise each cartrige has dozens of old Atari, Nintendo, and Sega games on them. The company has billboards advertising their machine and games in every major city and everybody is buying one. I can't believe that I forgot the name they're using for their product (it's hilarious), because it includes the name Bill Gates in the title somehow. Yes, the general public in India which is quite large has great respect for Bill. I didn't meet anyone while I was there that could name an alternative to Windows. Heck, they were surprised to find out that there are alternatives to Windows! Anyway, my point is shouldn't gaming companies be going after commerical companies that are selling illegal copies of their games in other countries instead of sites like Swapoo?
Incidently, the Swapoo kid received over 30 job offers immediately after he became national news. I try targetting companies that I know that I can help and can't even get one. It must be the perks of becoming a cyber celebrity.